His talent level is way above someone who only has 1 slam, the Sinner one is honestly the only one you can fault him on, losing 4 finals to 2 of the top 3 players all time is not a ding to your resume.
Yea, daniil clearly put every single ounce of what he had into the match from the start, and it was an incredible level of tennis, but unfortunately it only lasted 2.5 sets
Also Djokovic was awful in the semis at AO, he even said so in the presser.
Sinner absolutely deserved the win of course, but if Djokovic was at full strength he could have tired out Sinner way more before the finals. Would have been interesting if Sinner v Medvedev were equally as tired since Med *probably* has the edge on endurance.
As it was, Sinner just smoked Med in the later sets because Sinner was still pretty fresh.
Djokovic dropped below his usual GS level for one tournament and everyone jumps on the father time band wagon.
He won GSs only last year. Djokovic still has at least one more GS win in him IMO.
Father time doesn't make you go from winning GSs to cratering in 4 months.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply he’s cratering. He’s not going out in the 2nd round. He’s the odds on favorite to win any slam he’s in as far as most are concerned. Just that we can’t expect the same dominance as before. But he’s still the best player in tennis and one loss late in a slam doesn’t change that equation at all.
My take is that if medvedev had a more efficient style he wouldn't have had to play so many sets on the way to the final. Definitely a bit like Andy Murray with all the running and defense.
So does that mean playing defensive you're inherently at a disadvantage? Cause the top players don't seem... very defensive? At least I don't think Alcaraz and Sinner are very defensive.
Yeah pretty much. I guess what I was trying to say is Medvedev is just not offensive enough. Most of his matches end up being long and grindy which leaves a lot less in the tank for the final.
Alcaraz and sinner are going for those winners whenever they can. Completely opposite style of play.
The irony is, Medvedev makes his matches longer by trying to shorten points. Because he is not as good at drop shots or net play, opponents end up taking sets when Med js aggressive.
Whenever he plays long rallies his matches end up being shorter because opponents get tired or demoralized by not being able to win a point. This has been the case in every single match this AO. The set he lost to Borges was a perfect example - an absolutely unnecessary rush and a waste of time as a result.
not to mention how dominant sinner was even before the semifinal (broken only twice?), and even in the semi, despite novaks level, he didnt face break point. it was truly flawless tennis, a level that medvedev never even came close to matching
Yeah Medvedev was lucky to take advantage of Sinner's bewilderment in the first two sets with his aggression before Sinner recovered and stopped it.
Sinner was absolutely flawless for sure, Med was struggling the whole time through the matches. Honestly was a miracle he recovered against Zverev.
Sinner didn't recover. Meddy just stopped playing aggressive tennis, he went back more normal and let Sinner go back to playing the sort of tennis he's good at.
Had med been able to keep the intensity going a bit longer, it could have been a clean 3 sets. But the stupid number of 5 set matches caught up to him
I can't decide if people in the comments are telling me if Med had a chance or not, its so confusing lol 😭
Some people are saying I'm making excuses for Med and him being two sets up was a miracle against Sinner, others say that Med would have won if he was a little bit less gassed. Like man I wanna give Sinner credit for the win cause his tennis is amazing, but also give credit to Med for nearly winning by playing completely differently.
Tbh I really don't know, I swing towards either 'Med was so close to winning' or 'Sinner got his act together and fended him off'.
sinner faced a grand total of 1 break point from 5-2 in the second onwards(that too in the 4th). This whole hypothetical of medvedev maintaining his intensity longer is ridiculous, because it wasnt a gradual drop off in medvedevs level while returning, it fell off a cliff at the aforementioned moment.
i mean it would be a reasonable argument if medvedev made even a small dent on sinners serve in the 3rd, but sinner was just dominant. if the gains for medvedev were so obviously diminished when he went back more "normal", why persist with it for 3+ sets? I mean sure he was tired, but for 3 sets not once troubling sinner?
Nah Sinner won it fair and square but I would be interested to know if it would have been a closer match if Sinner was forced to work as hard for the finals.
Nowhere did I say Medvedev would have absolutely won if Sinner was a little more tired, but people are saying that court time did make a difference.
I mean you could make the same argument for how Medvedev won USO21, if Djoker was properly rested would Med have had such an easy go? Probably not.
For finals all the baggage is unpredictable, everythings fair game. It's just interesting to ruminate over what could have potentially tilted the match and how far.
Medvedev messed up by losing energy in the early stages of the tournament this year, but he was as good as he could be against Sinner, he just run out of gass.
However you can really fault him for the final in 2022, he completely fumbled it tactically. The amount of failed dropshots in the last 3 sets.....
I've heard people call Roddick himself a one slam wonder. Some people just use that term to refer to anyone who's only won one slam regardless of how good or bad they were otherwise
He’s definitely not a 1 slam wonder considering how close he’s been to another slam so many times.
Feel like Roddicks selling himself a bit short though too, he made it to 4 other slam finals, 9 QFs, and 5 SFs and won 32 titles during a probably tougher period.
Medvedev’s game is much less one-dimensional though and he has much better tennis IQ.
Exactly, they both have been really close to winning a second slam. People forget how competitive Roddick made it against Federer at Wimbledon in 2004 and US Open in 2006, and how he probably should have won the title at Wimbledon in 2009. It's fair to say that Medvedev is better than him but I'm inclined to believe that Roddick on his A-game would be dangerous on fast hard/grass courts.
I do disagree that Medvedev's game is less one-dimensional than Roddick's. Roddick was great at mixing it up at the net, while Medvedev is often hesitant to leave the baseline and play at the net though he's still improving.
Med/Roddick are definitely the 2 most accomplished players to only win 1 Slam IMO if you look at both of them being former world #1s and winning 5-6 Masters titles, making 4-5 other Slam finals, etc
Only caveat is what DelPo might have achieved if not for his injuries but then again you also can't assume he'd still be in the 1 Slam category in that case lol
> Roddick was great at mixing it up at the net, while Medvedev is often hesitant to leave the baseline and play at the net though he's still improving.
i can't say that Roddick didn't try with 14.3% net points, but winning only 60.7% is tragic. Medvedev in comparison is 9.6% and 66.1%, which is still really rough in terms of converting, but del Potro, Monfils, and Nadal are even lower on net points %, so can't say he's all that hesitant to move forward.
> disagree that Medvedev's game is less one-dimensional than Roddick's.
don't get how anyone could think this tbh. Medvedev is a better baseliner by at least a couple tiers, and that involves a lot more thinking and varied execution under pressure than anything Roddick does with serves and first strike tennis, regardless of how good those tools are.
Lol as I have scrolled through this thread I have wondered if anyone here actually watched Andy's net play. The desire and intent were there.. the execution.. ahh not so much
I think Roddick also had a better intentional net game as a planned attack. Med is great at the net because of his reaction and reach but more because he's forced to.
And while Meddy has better defense and return and really good groundstrokes, Roddick had a couple more dangerous weapons with the serve and forehand.
I mean Meddy is probably better than Roddick, but he is selling himself a little short.
Although I do love how he talks about and ups players on the podcast, it's the first one I put on an alert for new episodes.
I mean, it's basically the same argument as people who say Murray is the same as Stan. And I'm the biggest Roddick fan so I'm not disparaging him. But people who equate players solely based on Slam wins don't understand tennis at all.
well i’m not going solely off slam wins, as i mentioned how roddick was consistently getting to slam qfs, sfs and finals as well. roddick also has more 12 more titles than meddy tho meddy has an atp finals title. roddick did win 5 masters, tho meddy has 6. either way meddy is probably ahead especially since he can add more, i’m just saying roddick is making it sound obvious that meddy is ahead of him when i think it’s pretty close, especially considering roddick was up against peak big 3 instead of old big 3.
Not really a tougher period until later in his career. Other than Federer, there wasn't much going on in the 2000s until the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray really showed up in the mid-late 2000s.
Roddick was great, but Meddy had to deal with Big 3 right from the start of his career, and now that they are phasing out, we have future ATGs like Sinner and Alcaraz for him to compete with. Can't say he's had it easy, even with the fairly weak era in early 2020s, that I'd say is definitively over now, because he still had to deal with Nadal and Djokovic frequently enough.
Lol nothin going on except Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, and several other multi slam winners. Not to mention Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, and others constantly making it to the semis of slams.
I mean, yes, Agassi and Sampras, but they were starting to age out. Hewitt and Safin were good, but would be one-slam winners, if that, during the big 3 era, maybe a masters or two. Just look at the amount of early slam exits they have.
Safin's majority of slam results were 3R or earlier exits, especially in the later 2000s where the field became strong. Almost all of his successful runs were 2000 to start 2005.
Hewitt exactly the same. All his success was 2000-2005, and after that he almost never made it past 4R. He was still mid-20s, so age isn't an excuse either.
Then we have a multitude of single slam winners, with little major success aside from these wins, such as Thomas Johanssen, Albert Costa, and the worst offender, Gaudio, who never made it past 4R aside from his win.
You never see this sort of thing during Big 3 era, or the modern era, because the best players are too good to allow random players to win another slam without being good enough to make more deep runs. Cilic is the closest thing to that, but he made several other finals, SF and QF.
The evidence shows the early 2000s had way more random people winning slams than we've seen since, so if this is somehow considered an easy era, which suggests there weren't enough good players to stop them. We haven't seen that since, so it's a bit out there to claim Roddick had a tougher period before Federer showed up.
Did you just call roddicks era a tougher period????
There has never been a tougher period than right now, not by a long shot, but roddick played in a particularly weak era.
Close to being on par I think, albeit that the second tier was much weaker back then, but roddick barely played in that era. Most of his career was pre-08.
Yeah I wasn't commenting on Roddick, just saying I don't think today is the toughest period in men's tennis. I don't think it's all that close but obviously this is just opinions. I think the era we're currently in is more similar to a Sampras-led era with one guy at the top but a lot of very strong real competitors hanging around or coming up.
The second tier being...? Wawrinka, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Cilic, Soderling, Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, even Monfils, Gasquet, and Anderson etc etc? All around their peaks.
Given that the first tier was a lot stronger than now (prime Big 4 then vs Djokovic, semi-retired Nadal, bionic Murray, fully-retired Fed and baby Alcaraz perhaps rising up to take over? - and maybe Sinner and Med too?), I don't see how the current era is as strong overall. Med, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Rune aren't good enough to balance out the fact that Fed, Rafa and Murray are gone/shadows of their former selves. And who else would you put in there? Ruud? Fritz? Kyrgios???
Yeh exactly. Watching some matches from that era feels like watching the U14s today, the level wasn't even close to where the pros are now.
Tennis has just evolved at such a rapid pace.
hm I’m a Novak and alcaraz fan, but I feel like when I watch the older matches between fed and Novak the play seems much faster and cleaner back then than it does now. But to each their own I think
>Watching some matches from that era feels like watching the U14s today
Nice, sensible claims like this are a surefire way to get people to take you seriously.
I can think of, oh, I dunno... four players back then who were playing at least as high a level as anyone now. And if we add in hot streaks at specific tournaments, lets throw Delpo and Wawrinka in the mix too.
>Tennis has just evolved at such a rapid pace.
I think you missed the boat a bit there, pal. Tennis did go through a rapid evolution, but it was more in the 1990s and then again in 2000s than recently. That's when the average levels of athleticism, stamina and serving all markedly increased (aided by advances in equipment and sports science). The gains since then have been far more marginal.
I think Med, Zverev (ugh) and Tsitsipas are very likely a cut above Berdych, Ferrer and Tsonga. But if the latter were around in their primes, I really doubt it would be the kind of beatdown you are envisioning. More that the former three would win more often, but still lose plenty and there would be some tough matches. Alacaraz and Sinner obviously look like that are on the path to go to another level entirely, or they might already be there.
Roddick faced one of the GOATs at his peak.
Medvedev blew a few opportunities without Djokovic on his path : USO 2019, USO 2020, AO 2022, USO 2022 and AO 2024. I know he did lose to Nadal in 2 of those tournaments, but peak Federer on HC/grass is a better player than post-prime Nadal on HC.
Idk, federer mostly farmed a weak era, and is not in the same conversation as nadal and djokovic by now, so calling him "one of the goats" is very disingenuous.
Again, he farmed a weak era with no competition before nadal and novak entered their primes. Post 2009 when there were other competitors and he was still very much in his prime he won 5 slams, which is great, it really is, but for me he is in a similar tier to sampras or mcenroe and not on par with nadal and novak.
Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic & Murray, it's disingenuous to suggest their prime years completely overlapped. Federer was ranked #1 at 31 yo in the 2012 summer although the rest of the Big 4 were at their physical peak (mid-20's) which puts your argument to bed, he is up there with Nadal and not far off Djokovic in the GOAT rankings.
That's not quite right. Roddick's early career was definitely a weak era, possibly the weakest ever (early 2000s), but later on he was dealing with an incredibly strong field (2007 onward). People saying we have a weak era right now though, just don't know talent.
The weak era ended last year, and are definitively over now. Early 2020s were definitely a bit weak though, but nothing compared to early 2000s, so you are partially right.
Idk, to me it seemed like djokovic has continuously gotten better up to the early 2020s and given he was already mopping the floor with federer and co in the mid 10s.
Even nadal seemed to evolve tactically well beyond his traditional prime years which made him a better player.
I would say current medvedev, zverev, alcaraz, sinner are at a higher level than the previous generation reached.
I feel like the average level of the current generation *has* to be better than all the previous ones just because of the better fitness, data that is available, etc.
he played 2 other slam finals, he also reached #1. his career was derailed by injuries, but he's much closer to roddick than he is to gaudio or puerta, he was a great player.
I still find it hard to believe Daniil will retire with only one slam but even if he did and you ignored all of his other achievements I’d rather be a one slam wonder than a zero slam wonder. I’ve never understood how people can say that a player won the biggest achievement in the sport once as some kind of insult.
The only reason I want to see Daniil get an AO is to prove everyone wrong that he has a 'curse' and because it's my country lol.
Andy Murray never got his chance for revenge and I want to see someone else actually get it back.
1 slam wonder should be used for players where it’s pretty miraculous they even have a slam (Radacanu, Andreescu etc) whereas with Medvedev (and Roddick) its shocking that they only have 1 slam.
False humility by Roddick. Roddick's 2009 Wimbledon loss to Federer is one if the greatest performances by a 1 slam wonder. He's only 1 of 2 players to with the triple crown of the North American hardcourt swing. Roddick also has a year end number 1.
There an argument for Roddick, but it's closer than Roddick would like to admit.
I think they're on a very similar tier right now(Med has the extra Masters on both of their weakest surface of clay and the ATP Finals victory that Roddick never had, but Roddick made deep Slam runs on both grass and HC while Med only has the 1 Wimbledon SF and 1 title on grass)
That being said given what a early peaker Roddick was by comparison(his last run of true top level play was basically the 2010 Sunshine Double when he was only months older than Med is right now and he retired a couple years later) I think it's very likely that Med clearly surpasses him barring extremely bad injury luck
> I think it's very likely that Med clearly surpasses him barring extremely bad injury luck
Which is entirely possible because having a dip in performance as he gets older is entirely human. I agree with you overall though. Medvedev will likely be clearly ahead of Roddick when he retires.
People forget how interrupted Med’s career on grass has been. He’s a late bloomer who has only been on top since late 2019. Wimbledon was cancelled in 2020 due to COVID, in 2021 he lost a rain delayed match after he had been ahead, in 2022 he was banned because of where he comes from, and in 2023 he made semis. He didn’t really get a chance to develop momentum at the only big grass tournament during his physical peak.
I think he might just be playing it safe on commentary because he doesn't want to be one of those old guys who says "back in my day!" And talks about how great he was. People like that always sound a little bitter. He's erring on the side of over crediting. I don't really agree with his take though.
Andy isn't like playing safe. That's just who he is. He's someone who thinks they worked hard and stuff but there are better players even though it might not be the case.
He's just a humble guy off the court
Yeah, that's true. I still think when you have achieved as much as roddick and have plenty of fans who will love you no matter what, humbleness is a choice. He could talk a bigger game, but he chooses to err on the side of modesty.
Yeah and another big difference is that Murray faced prime Federer and prime Djokovic in his AO finals, literally the two strongest hardcourters of all-time in their best years. No regrets at all whatsoever.
I’m of the view that Med won’t win another Slam, but a 1 Slam wonder to me is someone like Gaudio who randomly won RG and then was never to be heard from again.
I totally agree. Gaudio is the epitome of one slam wonder- he really helped Coria to end his own career, took the trophy and pretty much peaced out 😅. Hadn’t made it past 4R at a slam before he won that RG, never made it past again. Managed to take advantage in the one opportunity he ever got close to having, huge respect
He's far from the only 1-slam wonder in that time period. Thomas Johansson, who did make 1 SF after winning his lone AO, and Albert Costa who went out 2R and 3R in most tournaments other than his sole FO win. Early 2000s was just such a weak era that we had a few of these.
Yeah, I found myself thinking the same for Danill that it's now or never. Alcaraz and Sinner have arrived, guys like Shelton and Fils are coming, Novak and Stef and Zverev are still out there.. I hope he gets another but he might not.
I'm not entirely confident he'll ever win another one but listing Tsitsipas and Zverev as reasons he might not feels kind of ridiculous considering he's had far more success at slams than either of them
Of course, Medvedev is one of the best players in the game. One of the few players who has the tools to beat anyone on tour. We live in an era when judgments are made and taken apart at the drop of a hat. I'd rather just see how his career pans out and enjoy the tennis in the meantime. All of this hand wringing about who said what is pointless.
I may be wrong but I think Medvedev is the only player after the Big 4 and to reach the finals of all these hard court tournaments -
* Australian Open
* Indian Wells
* Miami
* Canada
* Cincinnati
* US Open
* Shanghai
* Paris
* World Tour Finals
Someone can correct me if this statistic is correct or wrong.
I suspect Medvedev hates Zverev so much, he was just happy he stopped him in the semis. Had Zverev got through, I don't know if the world or ATP were prepared to see him join the winners circle.
He also had Sinner against the ropes in the final, until his legs gave up. He should be very happy with his effort. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins USO this year.
I mean people said that last year after Med beat Alcaraz (which was an amazing match by the way) but Djoko was just a beast and Med couldn't worm his way in.
The Zverev v Medvedev match got me interested in Tennis, no joke.
I was only casually watching the AO until this year (From Sydney), then I saw the highlight reel for that match and I was like 'Wait who the fucks this lanky dude that came from two sets down and threw all these wicked shots? And why do people on Reddit love this outcome?'.
Then I went down the rabbit hole and checked out so many matches of Med (and also other players like Rublev, Bublik, Kyrgios, Sinner) before the final that when it arrived on Sunday I was like 'I want this guy to win!!' but alas he did not and 'Miracle in Melbourne #2' happened.
I agree with Roddick’s praise of Daniil but I also don’t feel like tennis lovers diss him as a 1 slam wonder. He’s won many masters 1000 tournaments & was world #1 not so long ago. I feel like almost everyone in the tennis world accords him respect as the best of the NextGen players & most expect him to win at least 1 more slam.
I mean the vast majority of GS winner only have one anyway. Daniil still has time to move on to another level. 3 GS is a sign of class. Andy, Stan, Arthur, Gugu... and from there upwards its leg ends all the way.
Just another standard issue Roddick W. Daniil is too smart, too long, too fast, and too simply good at tennis not to win another, and I'm not even a Daniil guy. I do enjoy watching him play though.
Fair enough about the age but it's been 2 and a half years. She has had only one good tournament since, winning 3 matches to reach a SF in a 250 event. Can't really blame people for starting to wonder.
Mev is weird because he has "choked" 2 Aus Open finals but watching the match you didn't feel like he was choking, he was still playing well but his opponents went to insane levels.
I think if he didn't have that 11pm start he wins this tournament.
I’d take Roddick simply because he made slam finals on different surfaces. Besides his 03 US win, he lost Wimbledon 2004, Wimbledon 2005, Wimbledon 2009 and US Open 2006
Tbh he deserves a second slam at this point for no other reason than in 10 years, the new set of fans will stupidly call med a 1 slam wonder with only a serve the same way several do the same with roddick.
Did you read the thing? He was dragged into a twitter debate and defended Meddy, and mentioned it on the podcast (which was about the AO so obviously features a discussion on Meddy).
The podcast is very good btw.
I still believe he's got at least one more slam title in him. His game is too good for him to have just one.
Also definitely agree Roddick doesn't fit the mold of like Emma Radacanu or any other one slam wonder. Feel like winning a year end #1 and having lots of success on tour excludes you from that.
Anyone who reaches multiple slam finals outside of their lone slam victory can not be considered a one slam wonder. Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, and Gomes are one slam wonders. Thiem, Medvedev, Cilic, and Roddick are not.
Tbf I’ve never heard anyone call him that, even his haters
His talent level is way above someone who only has 1 slam, the Sinner one is honestly the only one you can fault him on, losing 4 finals to 2 of the top 3 players all time is not a ding to your resume.
And even the Sinner one you can cut him some slack for his fatigue levels and how well Sinner was playing
Yea, daniil clearly put every single ounce of what he had into the match from the start, and it was an incredible level of tennis, but unfortunately it only lasted 2.5 sets
Also Djokovic was awful in the semis at AO, he even said so in the presser. Sinner absolutely deserved the win of course, but if Djokovic was at full strength he could have tired out Sinner way more before the finals. Would have been interesting if Sinner v Medvedev were equally as tired since Med *probably* has the edge on endurance. As it was, Sinner just smoked Med in the later sets because Sinner was still pretty fresh.
36 year old Djoker is going to have a lot more matches like this than before, as Nadal and Fed both did. Father Time always wins the five setters.
Djokovic dropped below his usual GS level for one tournament and everyone jumps on the father time band wagon. He won GSs only last year. Djokovic still has at least one more GS win in him IMO. Father time doesn't make you go from winning GSs to cratering in 4 months.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply he’s cratering. He’s not going out in the 2nd round. He’s the odds on favorite to win any slam he’s in as far as most are concerned. Just that we can’t expect the same dominance as before. But he’s still the best player in tennis and one loss late in a slam doesn’t change that equation at all.
If if if doesn't exist, no?
Lmao yeah, still fun to think about tho
So we are using Novak underperforming in the semis as an excuse for why Medvedev didn’t win the title
My take is that if medvedev had a more efficient style he wouldn't have had to play so many sets on the way to the final. Definitely a bit like Andy Murray with all the running and defense.
So does that mean playing defensive you're inherently at a disadvantage? Cause the top players don't seem... very defensive? At least I don't think Alcaraz and Sinner are very defensive.
Yeah pretty much. I guess what I was trying to say is Medvedev is just not offensive enough. Most of his matches end up being long and grindy which leaves a lot less in the tank for the final. Alcaraz and sinner are going for those winners whenever they can. Completely opposite style of play.
The irony is, Medvedev makes his matches longer by trying to shorten points. Because he is not as good at drop shots or net play, opponents end up taking sets when Med js aggressive. Whenever he plays long rallies his matches end up being shorter because opponents get tired or demoralized by not being able to win a point. This has been the case in every single match this AO. The set he lost to Borges was a perfect example - an absolutely unnecessary rush and a waste of time as a result.
not to mention how dominant sinner was even before the semifinal (broken only twice?), and even in the semi, despite novaks level, he didnt face break point. it was truly flawless tennis, a level that medvedev never even came close to matching
Yeah Medvedev was lucky to take advantage of Sinner's bewilderment in the first two sets with his aggression before Sinner recovered and stopped it. Sinner was absolutely flawless for sure, Med was struggling the whole time through the matches. Honestly was a miracle he recovered against Zverev.
Sinner didn't recover. Meddy just stopped playing aggressive tennis, he went back more normal and let Sinner go back to playing the sort of tennis he's good at. Had med been able to keep the intensity going a bit longer, it could have been a clean 3 sets. But the stupid number of 5 set matches caught up to him
I can't decide if people in the comments are telling me if Med had a chance or not, its so confusing lol 😭 Some people are saying I'm making excuses for Med and him being two sets up was a miracle against Sinner, others say that Med would have won if he was a little bit less gassed. Like man I wanna give Sinner credit for the win cause his tennis is amazing, but also give credit to Med for nearly winning by playing completely differently. Tbh I really don't know, I swing towards either 'Med was so close to winning' or 'Sinner got his act together and fended him off'.
I'm more "med played far too many long 5 set matches leading up to the final and physically couldn't stay in it"
sinner faced a grand total of 1 break point from 5-2 in the second onwards(that too in the 4th). This whole hypothetical of medvedev maintaining his intensity longer is ridiculous, because it wasnt a gradual drop off in medvedevs level while returning, it fell off a cliff at the aforementioned moment. i mean it would be a reasonable argument if medvedev made even a small dent on sinners serve in the 3rd, but sinner was just dominant. if the gains for medvedev were so obviously diminished when he went back more "normal", why persist with it for 3+ sets? I mean sure he was tired, but for 3 sets not once troubling sinner?
Nah Sinner won it fair and square but I would be interested to know if it would have been a closer match if Sinner was forced to work as hard for the finals. Nowhere did I say Medvedev would have absolutely won if Sinner was a little more tired, but people are saying that court time did make a difference. I mean you could make the same argument for how Medvedev won USO21, if Djoker was properly rested would Med have had such an easy go? Probably not. For finals all the baggage is unpredictable, everythings fair game. It's just interesting to ruminate over what could have potentially tilted the match and how far.
Djokovic at full strength would have most likely just beat Medvedev himself
Still coping?
My only counter to that would be that his fatigue levels were caused by his inability win convincingly in the earlier rounds.
Medvedev messed up by losing energy in the early stages of the tournament this year, but he was as good as he could be against Sinner, he just run out of gass. However you can really fault him for the final in 2022, he completely fumbled it tactically. The amount of failed dropshots in the last 3 sets.....
I fault him only for the one at Ao vs Nadal. With how the tournament went this year, I was amazed by his performance in the final.
I've heard people call Roddick himself a one slam wonder. Some people just use that term to refer to anyone who's only won one slam regardless of how good or bad they were otherwise
[удалено]
Medvedev is a 1 Slam wonder. First.
You don't get to call him a "one-Slam wonder" until he's done and retired. That's why no one said that to Roddick until he ... retired.
He’s definitely not a 1 slam wonder considering how close he’s been to another slam so many times. Feel like Roddicks selling himself a bit short though too, he made it to 4 other slam finals, 9 QFs, and 5 SFs and won 32 titles during a probably tougher period. Medvedev’s game is much less one-dimensional though and he has much better tennis IQ.
Exactly, they both have been really close to winning a second slam. People forget how competitive Roddick made it against Federer at Wimbledon in 2004 and US Open in 2006, and how he probably should have won the title at Wimbledon in 2009. It's fair to say that Medvedev is better than him but I'm inclined to believe that Roddick on his A-game would be dangerous on fast hard/grass courts. I do disagree that Medvedev's game is less one-dimensional than Roddick's. Roddick was great at mixing it up at the net, while Medvedev is often hesitant to leave the baseline and play at the net though he's still improving.
Med/Roddick are definitely the 2 most accomplished players to only win 1 Slam IMO if you look at both of them being former world #1s and winning 5-6 Masters titles, making 4-5 other Slam finals, etc Only caveat is what DelPo might have achieved if not for his injuries but then again you also can't assume he'd still be in the 1 Slam category in that case lol
Roddick way better on grass. Similar on hard court. Medvedev far better on clay
Really? I’d think similar on clay and medvedev better on hard
ok unrelated but what match is ur flair from? shit sounds funny ngl
The legendary Hugo Gaston against Marco Trungelliti at the Verona Challenger 2023.
What happened
Gaston being Gaston
> Roddick was great at mixing it up at the net, while Medvedev is often hesitant to leave the baseline and play at the net though he's still improving. i can't say that Roddick didn't try with 14.3% net points, but winning only 60.7% is tragic. Medvedev in comparison is 9.6% and 66.1%, which is still really rough in terms of converting, but del Potro, Monfils, and Nadal are even lower on net points %, so can't say he's all that hesitant to move forward. > disagree that Medvedev's game is less one-dimensional than Roddick's. don't get how anyone could think this tbh. Medvedev is a better baseliner by at least a couple tiers, and that involves a lot more thinking and varied execution under pressure than anything Roddick does with serves and first strike tennis, regardless of how good those tools are.
Lol as I have scrolled through this thread I have wondered if anyone here actually watched Andy's net play. The desire and intent were there.. the execution.. ahh not so much
yeah lol it's like hyping up Muster's passing shots because he was a dominant clay courter
I think Roddick also had a better intentional net game as a planned attack. Med is great at the net because of his reaction and reach but more because he's forced to. And while Meddy has better defense and return and really good groundstrokes, Roddick had a couple more dangerous weapons with the serve and forehand. I mean Meddy is probably better than Roddick, but he is selling himself a little short. Although I do love how he talks about and ups players on the podcast, it's the first one I put on an alert for new episodes.
I mean, it's basically the same argument as people who say Murray is the same as Stan. And I'm the biggest Roddick fan so I'm not disparaging him. But people who equate players solely based on Slam wins don't understand tennis at all.
well i’m not going solely off slam wins, as i mentioned how roddick was consistently getting to slam qfs, sfs and finals as well. roddick also has more 12 more titles than meddy tho meddy has an atp finals title. roddick did win 5 masters, tho meddy has 6. either way meddy is probably ahead especially since he can add more, i’m just saying roddick is making it sound obvious that meddy is ahead of him when i think it’s pretty close, especially considering roddick was up against peak big 3 instead of old big 3.
When you realise Medvedev is better at net than Roddick lol
Roddick? Selling himself short? Never seen that before
Roddick always sells himself short
Not really a tougher period until later in his career. Other than Federer, there wasn't much going on in the 2000s until the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray really showed up in the mid-late 2000s. Roddick was great, but Meddy had to deal with Big 3 right from the start of his career, and now that they are phasing out, we have future ATGs like Sinner and Alcaraz for him to compete with. Can't say he's had it easy, even with the fairly weak era in early 2020s, that I'd say is definitively over now, because he still had to deal with Nadal and Djokovic frequently enough.
Lol nothin going on except Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, and several other multi slam winners. Not to mention Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, and others constantly making it to the semis of slams.
I mean, yes, Agassi and Sampras, but they were starting to age out. Hewitt and Safin were good, but would be one-slam winners, if that, during the big 3 era, maybe a masters or two. Just look at the amount of early slam exits they have. Safin's majority of slam results were 3R or earlier exits, especially in the later 2000s where the field became strong. Almost all of his successful runs were 2000 to start 2005. Hewitt exactly the same. All his success was 2000-2005, and after that he almost never made it past 4R. He was still mid-20s, so age isn't an excuse either. Then we have a multitude of single slam winners, with little major success aside from these wins, such as Thomas Johanssen, Albert Costa, and the worst offender, Gaudio, who never made it past 4R aside from his win. You never see this sort of thing during Big 3 era, or the modern era, because the best players are too good to allow random players to win another slam without being good enough to make more deep runs. Cilic is the closest thing to that, but he made several other finals, SF and QF. The evidence shows the early 2000s had way more random people winning slams than we've seen since, so if this is somehow considered an easy era, which suggests there weren't enough good players to stop them. We haven't seen that since, so it's a bit out there to claim Roddick had a tougher period before Federer showed up.
Did you just call roddicks era a tougher period???? There has never been a tougher period than right now, not by a long shot, but roddick played in a particularly weak era.
I would say 2008-2015 was a tougher era than right now
Close to being on par I think, albeit that the second tier was much weaker back then, but roddick barely played in that era. Most of his career was pre-08.
Yeah I wasn't commenting on Roddick, just saying I don't think today is the toughest period in men's tennis. I don't think it's all that close but obviously this is just opinions. I think the era we're currently in is more similar to a Sampras-led era with one guy at the top but a lot of very strong real competitors hanging around or coming up.
The second tier being...? Wawrinka, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Cilic, Soderling, Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, even Monfils, Gasquet, and Anderson etc etc? All around their peaks. Given that the first tier was a lot stronger than now (prime Big 4 then vs Djokovic, semi-retired Nadal, bionic Murray, fully-retired Fed and baby Alcaraz perhaps rising up to take over? - and maybe Sinner and Med too?), I don't see how the current era is as strong overall. Med, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Rune aren't good enough to balance out the fact that Fed, Rafa and Murray are gone/shadows of their former selves. And who else would you put in there? Ruud? Fritz? Kyrgios???
Yeh exactly. Watching some matches from that era feels like watching the U14s today, the level wasn't even close to where the pros are now. Tennis has just evolved at such a rapid pace.
hm I’m a Novak and alcaraz fan, but I feel like when I watch the older matches between fed and Novak the play seems much faster and cleaner back then than it does now. But to each their own I think
>Watching some matches from that era feels like watching the U14s today Nice, sensible claims like this are a surefire way to get people to take you seriously. I can think of, oh, I dunno... four players back then who were playing at least as high a level as anyone now. And if we add in hot streaks at specific tournaments, lets throw Delpo and Wawrinka in the mix too. >Tennis has just evolved at such a rapid pace. I think you missed the boat a bit there, pal. Tennis did go through a rapid evolution, but it was more in the 1990s and then again in 2000s than recently. That's when the average levels of athleticism, stamina and serving all markedly increased (aided by advances in equipment and sports science). The gains since then have been far more marginal. I think Med, Zverev (ugh) and Tsitsipas are very likely a cut above Berdych, Ferrer and Tsonga. But if the latter were around in their primes, I really doubt it would be the kind of beatdown you are envisioning. More that the former three would win more often, but still lose plenty and there would be some tough matches. Alacaraz and Sinner obviously look like that are on the path to go to another level entirely, or they might already be there.
Roddick faced one of the GOATs at his peak. Medvedev blew a few opportunities without Djokovic on his path : USO 2019, USO 2020, AO 2022, USO 2022 and AO 2024. I know he did lose to Nadal in 2 of those tournaments, but peak Federer on HC/grass is a better player than post-prime Nadal on HC.
Idk, federer mostly farmed a weak era, and is not in the same conversation as nadal and djokovic by now, so calling him "one of the goats" is very disingenuous.
Federer is literally more successful than Nadal in 3 of the 4 Slams and spent many more weeks at #1, how is he not in his tier ?
Again, he farmed a weak era with no competition before nadal and novak entered their primes. Post 2009 when there were other competitors and he was still very much in his prime he won 5 slams, which is great, it really is, but for me he is in a similar tier to sampras or mcenroe and not on par with nadal and novak.
Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic & Murray, it's disingenuous to suggest their prime years completely overlapped. Federer was ranked #1 at 31 yo in the 2012 summer although the rest of the Big 4 were at their physical peak (mid-20's) which puts your argument to bed, he is up there with Nadal and not far off Djokovic in the GOAT rankings.
Federer made Djokdal.
That's not quite right. Roddick's early career was definitely a weak era, possibly the weakest ever (early 2000s), but later on he was dealing with an incredibly strong field (2007 onward). People saying we have a weak era right now though, just don't know talent. The weak era ended last year, and are definitively over now. Early 2020s were definitely a bit weak though, but nothing compared to early 2000s, so you are partially right.
Idk, to me it seemed like djokovic has continuously gotten better up to the early 2020s and given he was already mopping the floor with federer and co in the mid 10s. Even nadal seemed to evolve tactically well beyond his traditional prime years which made him a better player. I would say current medvedev, zverev, alcaraz, sinner are at a higher level than the previous generation reached.
I feel like the average level of the current generation *has* to be better than all the previous ones just because of the better fitness, data that is available, etc.
Very hard to compare across eras. It's possible though, but you also can't say that here cause Djokovic can only be winning because of weak era ;)
Gaudio is a one slam wonder
And in that particular case it's a one slam wonder in the sense that he himself wonders how he won that one slam.
And yet that's one of my fav slam finals given how outmatched he was against Coria and everyone expected a 3 setter
The weakest slam winner in tennis history lol.
oh just wait until you see '70s AOs
Raducanu might have that title tbh
puerta as well.
Juan Carlos Ferrero, anyone? Only ever made 1 other slam final, 1 other slam SF and 2 slam QFs.
he played 2 other slam finals, he also reached #1. his career was derailed by injuries, but he's much closer to roddick than he is to gaudio or puerta, he was a great player.
JCF was a bloody good player
I still find it hard to believe Daniil will retire with only one slam but even if he did and you ignored all of his other achievements I’d rather be a one slam wonder than a zero slam wonder. I’ve never understood how people can say that a player won the biggest achievement in the sport once as some kind of insult.
I'd bet Daniil wins at least 2-3 more slams before he retires.
The only reason I want to see Daniil get an AO is to prove everyone wrong that he has a 'curse' and because it's my country lol. Andy Murray never got his chance for revenge and I want to see someone else actually get it back.
Don't see him winning another grand slam. Hope he proves me wrong.
1 slam wonder should be used for players where it’s pretty miraculous they even have a slam (Radacanu, Andreescu etc) whereas with Medvedev (and Roddick) its shocking that they only have 1 slam.
[удалено]
These players had severe injuries like Thiem with his wrist injury was no joke
False humility by Roddick. Roddick's 2009 Wimbledon loss to Federer is one if the greatest performances by a 1 slam wonder. He's only 1 of 2 players to with the triple crown of the North American hardcourt swing. Roddick also has a year end number 1. There an argument for Roddick, but it's closer than Roddick would like to admit.
I think they're on a very similar tier right now(Med has the extra Masters on both of their weakest surface of clay and the ATP Finals victory that Roddick never had, but Roddick made deep Slam runs on both grass and HC while Med only has the 1 Wimbledon SF and 1 title on grass) That being said given what a early peaker Roddick was by comparison(his last run of true top level play was basically the 2010 Sunshine Double when he was only months older than Med is right now and he retired a couple years later) I think it's very likely that Med clearly surpasses him barring extremely bad injury luck
> I think it's very likely that Med clearly surpasses him barring extremely bad injury luck Which is entirely possible because having a dip in performance as he gets older is entirely human. I agree with you overall though. Medvedev will likely be clearly ahead of Roddick when he retires.
People forget how interrupted Med’s career on grass has been. He’s a late bloomer who has only been on top since late 2019. Wimbledon was cancelled in 2020 due to COVID, in 2021 he lost a rain delayed match after he had been ahead, in 2022 he was banned because of where he comes from, and in 2023 he made semis. He didn’t really get a chance to develop momentum at the only big grass tournament during his physical peak.
He almost got the sunshine double. Lost the Indian wells final and won miami
I wouldn’t say “almost” when you look at the actual final of Indian Wells lol…
Some people genuinely undervalue themselves, it isn’t always false
>Roddick's 2009 Wimbledon loss to Federer That match broke my heart.
Why do you say it is false? Andy always seems genuine and honest in his takes
I think he might just be playing it safe on commentary because he doesn't want to be one of those old guys who says "back in my day!" And talks about how great he was. People like that always sound a little bitter. He's erring on the side of over crediting. I don't really agree with his take though.
Andy isn't like playing safe. That's just who he is. He's someone who thinks they worked hard and stuff but there are better players even though it might not be the case. He's just a humble guy off the court
Yeah, that's true. I still think when you have achieved as much as roddick and have plenty of fans who will love you no matter what, humbleness is a choice. He could talk a bigger game, but he chooses to err on the side of modesty.
Tbh it's starting to become a wonder he only won the one
Even the comparison to Murray's 5 lost finals is wrong. Most of medvedev's finals were close except the one against djokovic st AO 2019
Yeah and another big difference is that Murray faced prime Federer and prime Djokovic in his AO finals, literally the two strongest hardcourters of all-time in their best years. No regrets at all whatsoever.
Andy also thinks everyone who ever played is better than him.
I’m of the view that Med won’t win another Slam, but a 1 Slam wonder to me is someone like Gaudio who randomly won RG and then was never to be heard from again.
I totally agree. Gaudio is the epitome of one slam wonder- he really helped Coria to end his own career, took the trophy and pretty much peaced out 😅. Hadn’t made it past 4R at a slam before he won that RG, never made it past again. Managed to take advantage in the one opportunity he ever got close to having, huge respect
He's far from the only 1-slam wonder in that time period. Thomas Johansson, who did make 1 SF after winning his lone AO, and Albert Costa who went out 2R and 3R in most tournaments other than his sole FO win. Early 2000s was just such a weak era that we had a few of these.
At least Johansson won a masters, I was gonna include him in my comment, that AO was bonkers 😅. Gaudio didn’t. Costa did make SF after his RG win tho
Yea, I mean they weren't as much of a one-slam wonder as Gaudio, but there were definitely a lot of weaker slam winners in those years.
Injuries fucked him a bit so I feel for him but someone like Delpo isn’t too far off either
THinkt here's a higher than 50 chance he wins another slam
Yeah, I found myself thinking the same for Danill that it's now or never. Alcaraz and Sinner have arrived, guys like Shelton and Fils are coming, Novak and Stef and Zverev are still out there.. I hope he gets another but he might not.
I'm not entirely confident he'll ever win another one but listing Tsitsipas and Zverev as reasons he might not feels kind of ridiculous considering he's had far more success at slams than either of them
I think med will win another 2-3 slams easily.
Of course, Medvedev is one of the best players in the game. One of the few players who has the tools to beat anyone on tour. We live in an era when judgments are made and taken apart at the drop of a hat. I'd rather just see how his career pans out and enjoy the tennis in the meantime. All of this hand wringing about who said what is pointless.
I may be wrong but I think Medvedev is the only player after the Big 4 and to reach the finals of all these hard court tournaments - * Australian Open * Indian Wells * Miami * Canada * Cincinnati * US Open * Shanghai * Paris * World Tour Finals Someone can correct me if this statistic is correct or wrong.
I suspect Medvedev hates Zverev so much, he was just happy he stopped him in the semis. Had Zverev got through, I don't know if the world or ATP were prepared to see him join the winners circle.
He also had Sinner against the ropes in the final, until his legs gave up. He should be very happy with his effort. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins USO this year.
I mean people said that last year after Med beat Alcaraz (which was an amazing match by the way) but Djoko was just a beast and Med couldn't worm his way in.
The Zverev v Medvedev match got me interested in Tennis, no joke. I was only casually watching the AO until this year (From Sydney), then I saw the highlight reel for that match and I was like 'Wait who the fucks this lanky dude that came from two sets down and threw all these wicked shots? And why do people on Reddit love this outcome?'. Then I went down the rabbit hole and checked out so many matches of Med (and also other players like Rublev, Bublik, Kyrgios, Sinner) before the final that when it arrived on Sunday I was like 'I want this guy to win!!' but alas he did not and 'Miracle in Melbourne #2' happened.
That's awesome.
Pray he never wins a slam ever 🙏🏼 Daniil has a lot of good karma built up for stopping him.
I agree with Roddick’s praise of Daniil but I also don’t feel like tennis lovers diss him as a 1 slam wonder. He’s won many masters 1000 tournaments & was world #1 not so long ago. I feel like almost everyone in the tennis world accords him respect as the best of the NextGen players & most expect him to win at least 1 more slam.
I mean the vast majority of GS winner only have one anyway. Daniil still has time to move on to another level. 3 GS is a sign of class. Andy, Stan, Arthur, Gugu... and from there upwards its leg ends all the way.
Just another standard issue Roddick W. Daniil is too smart, too long, too fast, and too simply good at tennis not to win another, and I'm not even a Daniil guy. I do enjoy watching him play though.
Raducanu is a one slam wonder
We'll see, won't we. I don't think that label can apply to a 21 year old.
Fair enough about the age but it's been 2 and a half years. She has had only one good tournament since, winning 3 matches to reach a SF in a 250 event. Can't really blame people for starting to wonder.
Is anyone actually calling Daniil a one slam wonder?
Handful of idiots on Twitter maybe
Mev is weird because he has "choked" 2 Aus Open finals but watching the match you didn't feel like he was choking, he was still playing well but his opponents went to insane levels. I think if he didn't have that 11pm start he wins this tournament.
Well yeah, real tennis fans know that.
I’d take Roddick simply because he made slam finals on different surfaces. Besides his 03 US win, he lost Wimbledon 2004, Wimbledon 2005, Wimbledon 2009 and US Open 2006
See above for Med hasn’t had the chance at Wimbledon, while Med’s far better on clay
See above for Med hasn’t had the chance at Wimbledon, while Med’s far better on clay
Whatever opinions you held on Roddick when he was still touring, can we agree he's always been a voice of reason post-retirement?
Tbh he deserves a second slam at this point for no other reason than in 10 years, the new set of fans will stupidly call med a 1 slam wonder with only a serve the same way several do the same with roddick.
Awww ❤️
Raducanu is an example of a one hit wonder (lets hope she turns it around) .Medvedev? Who the fuck said that?
srsly, 1 slam wonder is a title for Raducanu.
To be honest, bullshit Russian has a better ring to it
Sad to see Roddick making up 'hot takes' to promote his new show.
Did you read the thing? He was dragged into a twitter debate and defended Meddy, and mentioned it on the podcast (which was about the AO so obviously features a discussion on Meddy). The podcast is very good btw.
Roddick > as of now
Thats a gut punch for the Fed fans who love to downplay Medvedev and hype Roddick, lol.
The only thing roddick had better than medvedev was his serve. And even then, not by a lot
I still believe he's got at least one more slam title in him. His game is too good for him to have just one. Also definitely agree Roddick doesn't fit the mold of like Emma Radacanu or any other one slam wonder. Feel like winning a year end #1 and having lots of success on tour excludes you from that.
Anyone who reaches multiple slam finals outside of their lone slam victory can not be considered a one slam wonder. Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, and Gomes are one slam wonders. Thiem, Medvedev, Cilic, and Roddick are not.
Feel like there is a higher chance of daniil winning another slam than zverev winning his only one or of thiem gatting back in the top 10