Daniil Medvedev's historical ranking

[El Dude]

This thread is more of a place-holder for after the final, as he'll either have a 2nd Slam win or a fourth Slam final loss...which I think makes a difference, at least in a surface way. Meaning, 2-3 or 1-4 in Slam finals.

Anyhow, I tried to come up with a different phrase than "historical ranking" but couldn't think of something that was closer to the meaning I wanted to infer. Basically, I wanted to explore where Medvedev belongs in terms of historical comps. As anyone who has more than a skin-deep understanding of the history of the sport knows, not all one-Slam winners are alike, and really there's a huge range of ability in the 0-3ish Slam group, with some Slamless players being better--even much better--than the proverbial "one-Slam wonders." Furthermore, we can't simply say that 2 Slam winners were better than 1 Slam winners; in some cases, I'd argue that some Slamless players (e.g. Okker, Ferrer, Zverev, etc) were greater players than at least one guy who won two Slams (Johan Kriek). Or we could compare Marcelo Rios to Thomas Johannson, as contemporary players; the former never won a Slam but for a year or two was arguably the best player on tour; the latter was basically a good journeyman for whom the stars aligned (Johansson peaked at #7 in both Elo and ATP, and never finished in the year-end top 10. Among contemporary players, Roberto Bautista Agut is a very close comp).

But what about Medvedev? Where does he belong? Without going too deeply into the numbers, my first impression is that he's one of the better 1-2 Slam winners in Open Era history, perhaps comparable to guys like Gerulaitis, Del Potro, Safin and Stich -- players who were better than their Slam count entails. To take those four, each had "special circumstances" that limited their Slam count. Gerulaitis was a notorious libertine and was always stuck behind his own Big Three/Four; Del Potro struggled with injury for most of his career; Safin had a similar problem to Gerulaitis; and Stich had a very short career -- he got going a bit late, and then reached his peak as Courier was peaking, Sampras was coming into his own, and Edberg and Becker were still in their primes.

Medvedev is the best player born after the Djokodal generation and before Carlos Alcaraz, a span of 15 years (Del Potro was born in 1988, Alcaraz in 2003). He's surpassed Dominic Thiem and is the best player of "Next Gen." For a bit there it looked like Zverev would take that crown, but he's yet to win a Slam and, I think, isn't quite as good as Daniil at their respective bests.

If you look at the GOAT Points list, he's at #31 just ahead of Gerulaitis and Zverev, and just behind a group of players that includes Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Ferrer, Muster, and Okker (and yes, I know GP is far from perfect, but it does a good job at looking at career totals, not-so good at pin-pointing peak level). Meaning, guys who are in the top half of the 0-2 Slam group. If he wins tomorrow, he'll pass all of those guys in GOAT points and be #26; if he loses, he'll still pass all but Kuerten and be #27. Either way, he's a virtual lock for the top 25 (#25 is current Yevgeny Kafelnikov) with a chance of pushing #20 Lleyton Hewitt out of the top 20.

Obviously Daniil isn't done, but he's also 27 years old and may have fewer peak years ahead than behind. But he's an interesting player because every big title and especially Slam, really impacts his historic ranking. Meaning, he's got a chance of separating himself from the "good 0-2 pack" and joining that nebulous zone just shy of true greatness, the "lesser to near greats" like Courier, Hewitt, Nastase, etc. Or he could fall short, and be more comparable to guys like Chang and Roddick.

What say you? Where do you see Medvedev ranking, historically speaking? Both now and where you expect him to end up?

 

[El Dude]

Well, he's 1-4 and reaching five Slam finals put him in an interesting group, ranked by final win %:

Arthur Ashe 3-2
Jan Kodes 3-2
Ilie Nastase 2-3
Andy Roddick 1-4
Daniil Medvedev 1-4

It is also worth noting that after 2012, Andy Murray--then 25--was 1-4 in Slam finals, then went 2-4 to finish 3-8. Ivan Lendl was 1-4 after winning his first at age 24, then went 7-7 to finish 8-11.

Daniil is two years older than Murray and three than Lendl; I don't see him as ever being as great as either, but clearly it is likely that he'll at least play in more finals, and possibly win another Slam or two.

Among players who won 6+ finals, Laver is the only one who reached 6 during the Open Era (4-2), and then you have Courier and Newcombe at 7, both 4-3. Rosewall and Vilas were both 4-4, and then you jump to guys with 10 or more Slam finals.

 

[Kieran]

It’s possible that he wins a few more, especially when there’s nobody called Rafa or Novak left playing. Danii is an enigma, he can be fierce but he’s also very sensitive. In other words, he’s unreliable. But he might blossom if he’s an elder citizen type of player, trying to hold off the young guns..

 

[El Dude]

It’s possible that he wins a few more, especially when there’s nobody called Rafa or Novak left playing. Danii is an enigma, he can be fierce but he’s also very sensitive. In other words, he’s unreliable. But he might blossom if he’s an elder citizen type of player, trying to hold off the young guns..

What I find interesting about Daniil is he's a caliber of player that we haven't seen for awhile, at least not with great regularity. For years it was the Big 3, Murray a step down with Stan and Del Potro sprinkled in for a bit, but then a big drop to the "second tier" pack. Daniil is somewhere between Murray and the second tier guys, somewhat comparable to Stan and Del Potro, although perhaps not quite as good in his best moments. Zverev is kind of there too - better than the Tsongas and Berdychs of the world, but not quite at the Murray level.

Meaning, we tend to look at players as either great or not, when there's a lot of room between. Some of those guys were great for a short period of time (Courier), or struggled with injury (Del Potro) or had mental/lifestyle issues (Safin). But it is an interesting range of players.

But I think also, we tend to see everyone other than the Big 3/4 as under-achieving, or not yet blossoming, seemingly forgetting just how great the Big 3 were (and are, at least Novak). Daniil would have beaten any other player on tour - he did beat Alcaraz - but he had to face the (or a) GOAT, and what is he supposed to do? He can't beat Novak every time, and he'll lose more than not...at least until Novak stops being able to find that stratospheric level that has set him, Rafa, and Roger ahead of just about everyone else in tennis history, or at least since Mac and Borg at their very best.