2025 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[MargaretMcAleer]

BTW,
Seeing Jiri Lehecka being defeated today
One of Fonseca, Jarry, Bellucci and Norrie will reach the QFs at Wimbledon
What a chance for them!

 

[Moxie]

BTW,
Seeing Jiri Lehecka being defeated today
One of Fonseca, Jarry, Bellucci and Norrie will reach the QFs at Wimbledon
What a chance for them!

Yes, we all thought that Lehecka was one no one would want to see in their draw, and yet he's out already. BTW, I thought Cam Norrie played really well today, and it wasn't so much that Tiafoe played poorly. And he'll have the crowd behind him. Jarry has a big serve, and he's tall, and he's great when he's hot, but he also runs cold. I'd say Fonseca or Norrie to get through there. Terrific opportunity, as you say.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yes, we all thought that Lehecka was one no one would want to see in their draw, and yet he's out already. BTW, I thought Cam Norrie played really well today, and it wasn't so much that Tiafoe played poorly. And he'll have the crowd behind him. Jarry has a big serve, and he's tall, and he's great when he's hot, but he also runs cold. I'd say Fonseca or Norrie to get through there. Terrific opportunity, as you say.

It is a great opportunity fingers crossed for my youngster, though big serving Jarry wont be a piece of cake

 

[Moxie]

In hindsight, it seems typical of the type of player he is that Bublik ducked out in round 1. Some writers on tennis.com were predicting great things for him, which is recentism in overdrive.

Definitely! Bublik is fun to watch, but (and because) he's a wacko. Unpredictable what you might get.

Thiem retired years ago, now Sissy, Med & Sasha are god in the first round of a slam. Pity about Thiem but the others? Good riddance. The least tough generation in tennis history..

Thiem was a hard worker, as well as a pretty talented player, and he won a Major. Medvedev at least won a Major. We'll see if he gets his groove and drive back. But I have long been over the other 2. To me, they harken back to Dimitrov.. The talent gets talked up really early (and, IMO, he's the most talented of those 3,) but the glamour and the good looks and the up-themselves of it all gets in the way. All 3 have had perfectly decent careers, but not up to expectations, due to their own failings. Dimitrov seems to have found some dedication later-career, having been humbled by no longer being the young hotshot, but the ship has sailed on another really big title.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Definitely! Bublik is fun to watch, but (and because) he's a wacko. Unpredictable what you might get.

Thiem was a hard worker, as well as a pretty talented player, and he won a Major. Medvedev at least won a Major. We'll see if he gets his groove and drive back. But I have long been over the other 2. To me, they harken back to Dimitrov.. The talent gets talked up really early (and, IMO, he's the most talented of those 3,) but the glamour and the good looks and the up-themselves of it all gets in the way. All 3 have had perfectly decent careers, but not up to expectations, due to their own failings. Dimitrov seems to have found some dedication later-career, having been humbled by no longer being the young hotshot, but the ship has sailed on another really big title.

Movie
Bulbik is a streaky player at the best of times I really didn't have all the confidence in him doing well at Wimbledon

 

[El Dude]

Gill Gross talked about the Little Three (my term for Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas - the three best players of that gen) in his recent mailbag video. The long and short of it is that he re-iterated the view that back in the late 2010s when they were breaking through, there was a lot of talk of them inheriting the top of mountain from the Big Three. Gross speculates that they took that too much to heart and leaned more into expectation an even entitlement (especially with Tsitsipas and Zverev), and never really captured the mentality of true champions.

He also mentioned that the recent press conferences of Zverev and Tsitsipas were "really dark." Zverev said he doesn't even experience much joy at winning anymore, and Tsitsipas said he doesn't know how much longer he can continue like this (recurrent back injury).

Anyhow, my prediction is that Medvedev settles in a for a few more years, hanging out in the #8-20 range, threatening at big titles but never winning another Slam. But he seems to have the best mentality to enjoy a nice "post-peak" period. He can certainly win more 250s/500s, and maybe even grab another Masters with a bit of luck.

Zverev, I think, will crash and burn in the next year or so. Maybe he bounces back for one more surge--his career has included a couple cycles of rise and falls, so he may be beginning another fall, with a possible rise in 2026-27ish. But I'd say that's 50-50, and even he sticks it out and rises again, he's probably going to be done by 2028-29. He's not a player I can see playing beyond 30 or 31.

I think Tsitsipas needs to take some time off, maybe as much as the rest of the year, to let himself really heal. Hang out on the beach, enjoy your life, and see how you feel in November, then if you have the urge (or need the money) get yourself in shape for the Australian Open. If not, well, you've made a nice chunk of change and had a top 50 all-time career...no shame in that.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Gill Gross talked about the Little Three (my term for Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas - the three best players of that gen) in his recent mailbag video. The long and short of it is that he re-iterated the view that back in the late 2010s when they were breaking through, there was a lot of talk of them inheriting the top of mountain from the Big Three. Gross speculates that they took that too much to heart and leaned more into expectation an even entitlement (especially with Tsitsipas and Zverev), and never really captured the mentality of true champions.

He also mentioned that the recent press conferences of Zverev and Tsitsipas were "really dark." Zverev said he doesn't even experience much joy at winning anymore, and Tsitsipas said he doesn't know how much longer he can continue like this (recurrent back injury).

Anyhow, my prediction is that Medvedev settles in a for a few more years, hanging out in the #8-20 range, threatening at big titles but never winning another Slam. But he seems to have the best mentality to enjoy a nice "post-peak" period. He can certainly win more 250s/500s, and maybe even grab another Masters with a bit of luck.

Zverev, I think, will crash and burn in the next year or so. Maybe he bounces back for one more surge--his career has included a couple cycles of rise and falls, so he may be beginning another fall, with a possible rise in 2026-27ish. But I'd say that's 50-50, and even he sticks it out and rises again, he's probably going to be done by 2028-29. He's not a player I can see playing beyond 30 or 31.

I think Tsitsipas needs to take some time off, maybe as much as the rest of the year, to let himself really heal. Hang out on the beach, enjoy your life, and see how you feel in November, then if you have the urge (or need the money) get yourself in shape for the Australian Open. If not, well, you've made a nice chunk of change and had a top 50 all-time career...no shame in that.

Well Stef has entered to play Umag
Let's see if he plays this back injury needs time off to heal
Goran said that his physical level is no where it should be before he fixes anything else in his game they need to focus on that first

I agree with your thoughts and also Gills

 

[kskate2]

Order of Play for Wimbledon, Day 4 Round 2, July 3, 2025

 

[Kieran]

Definitely! Bublik is fun to watch, but (and because) he's a wacko. Unpredictable what you might get.

Thiem was a hard worker, as well as a pretty talented player, and he won a Major. Medvedev at least won a Major. We'll see if he gets his groove and drive back. But I have long been over the other 2. To me, they harken back to Dimitrov.. The talent gets talked up really early (and, IMO, he's the most talented of those 3,) but the glamour and the good looks and the up-themselves of it all gets in the way. All 3 have had perfectly decent careers, but not up to expectations, due to their own failings. Dimitrov seems to have found some dedication later-career, having been humbled by no longer being the young hotshot, but the ship has sailed on another really big title.

Ah yeah, sorry, I meant with Thiem gone. he was a different class to those boys. Medvedev won a slam but he's been hugely disappointing. An underachiever with the Russian spirit for self pity and insecurity. A chip on his shoulder so huge they didn't even have time to peel the potato. The other two are male bimbos...

 

[Kieran]

Gill Gross talked about the Little Three (my term for Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas - the three best players of that gen) in his recent mailbag video. The long and short of it is that he re-iterated the view that back in the late 2010s when they were breaking through, there was a lot of talk of them inheriting the top of mountain from the Big Three. Gross speculates that they took that too much to heart and leaned more into expectation an even entitlement (especially with Tsitsipas and Zverev), and never really captured the mentality of true champions.

He also mentioned that the recent press conferences of Zverev and Tsitsipas were "really dark." Zverev said he doesn't even experience much joy at winning anymore, and Tsitsipas said he doesn't know how much longer he can continue like this (recurrent back injury).

Anyhow, my prediction is that Medvedev settles in a for a few more years, hanging out in the #8-20 range, threatening at big titles but never winning another Slam. But he seems to have the best mentality to enjoy a nice "post-peak" period. He can certainly win more 250s/500s, and maybe even grab another Masters with a bit of luck.

Zverev, I think, will crash and burn in the next year or so. Maybe he bounces back for one more surge--his career has included a couple cycles of rise and falls, so he may be beginning another fall, with a possible rise in 2026-27ish. But I'd say that's 50-50, and even he sticks it out and rises again, he's probably going to be done by 2028-29. He's not a player I can see playing beyond 30 or 31.

I think Tsitsipas needs to take some time off, maybe as much as the rest of the year, to let himself really heal. Hang out on the beach, enjoy your life, and see how you feel in November, then if you have the urge (or need the money) get yourself in shape for the Australian Open. If not, well, you've made a nice chunk of change and had a top 50 all-time career...no shame in that.

I must find that Gil Gross site, that's very astute and rings true.

Gross speculates that they took that too much to heart and leaned more into expectation an even entitlement (especially with Tsitsipas and Zverev), and never really captured the mentality of true champions.

Bingo!

 

[Moxie]

Gill Gross talked about the Little Three (my term for Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas - the three best players of that gen) in his recent mailbag video. The long and short of it is that he re-iterated the view that back in the late 2010s when they were breaking through, there was a lot of talk of them inheriting the top of mountain from the Big Three. Gross speculates that they took that too much to heart and leaned more into expectation an even entitlement (especially with Tsitsipas and Zverev), and never really captured the mentality of true champions.

He also mentioned that the recent press conferences of Zverev and Tsitsipas were "really dark." Zverev said he doesn't even experience much joy at winning anymore, and Tsitsipas said he doesn't know how much longer he can continue like this (recurrent back injury).

Anyhow, my prediction is that Medvedev settles in a for a few more years, hanging out in the #8-20 range, threatening at big titles but never winning another Slam. But he seems to have the best mentality to enjoy a nice "post-peak" period. He can certainly win more 250s/500s, and maybe even grab another Masters with a bit of luck.

Zverev, I think, will crash and burn in the next year or so. Maybe he bounces back for one more surge--his career has included a couple cycles of rise and falls, so he may be beginning another fall, with a possible rise in 2026-27ish. But I'd say that's 50-50, and even he sticks it out and rises again, he's probably going to be done by 2028-29. He's not a player I can see playing beyond 30 or 31.

I think Tsitsipas needs to take some time off, maybe as much as the rest of the year, to let himself really heal. Hang out on the beach, enjoy your life, and see how you feel in November, then if you have the urge (or need the money) get yourself in shape for the Australian Open. If not, well, you've made a nice chunk of change and had a top 50 all-time career...no shame in that.

Obviously, Gil Gross reads our forums. LOL. Or, this sentiment is universal. I think their cardinal sin is entitlement. The first rule of Fight Club is don't read your own publicity. I reject your lumping Medvedev in with Zverev and Tsitsipas, though, in this sense, because I think their problems are different. Zverev and Stephanos were pegged early, and also because of their looks, let's face it. I mean, the media was regularly referring to Tsitsipas as the "Greek God." How do you live up to that?! Same as calling Dimitrov "Baby Fed." Zverev just knew he was handsome, and got told since he was about 18 that he was the next Big Thing. Point is, they all bought into it. Thus the entitlement. And yet, the gold ring didn't arrive for them. Thus, the darkness, and lack of enthusiasm.

I think it's different for Medvedev. First of all, he does have that gold ring. Secondly, he was never promised greatness. He came up as rather a surprise, and as a despised figure, if you remember him fighting the US Open crowds. I don't think he ever especially "expected" greatness. He just became the interim guy, beating (finally) Novak and Rafa. But he also struggled against them. The loss to Rafa in Oz in 2022 seemed to shatter him a bit. He recuperated a bit, then he didn't. He doesn't suffer from an outsized ego. He suffers from lack of belief. And now lack of results are making this less interesting for him. He's also got 2 kids. His soul suffers for different reasons. If he hangs 'em up sooner than later, it might be because of lack of confidence in his game, in the face of Sincaraz. But I don't think he's bitter in the same way this "darkness" is coming to Zed and the Greek. They act like someone took something from them they should have had.

 

[Moxie]

Ah yeah, sorry, I meant with Thiem gone. he was a different class to those boys. Medvedev won a slam but he's been hugely disappointing. An underachiever with the Russian spirit for self pity and insecurity. A chip on his shoulder so huge they didn't even have time to peel the potato. The other two are male bimbos...

I did understand that you were separating Thiem from the other 3. How could you not? Upstanding guy.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Good to see the Frenchman Rinderknech back up his good win the other day taking out Zed, apparently he likes 5 set matches and won 36 63 76(3) 46 63 over Garin

 

[El Dude]

Obviously, Gil Gross reads our forums. LOL. Or, this sentiment is universal. I think their cardinal sin is entitlement. The first rule of Fight Club is don't read your own publicity. I reject your lumping Medvedev in with Zverev and Tsitsipas, though, in this sense, because I think their problems are different. Zverev and Stephanos were pegged early, and also because of their looks, let's face it. I mean, the media was regularly referring to Tsitsipas as the "Greek God." How do you live up to that?! Same as calling Dimitrov "Baby Fed." Zverev just knew he was handsome, and got told since he was about 18 that he was the next Big Thing. Point is, they all bought into it. Thus the entitlement. And yet, the gold ring didn't arrive for them. Thus, the darkness, and lack of enthusiasm.

I think it's different for Medvedev. First of all, he does have that gold ring. Secondly, he was never promised greatness. He came up as rather a surprise, and as a despised figure, if you remember him fighting the US Open crowds. I don't think he ever especially "expected" greatness. He just became the interim guy, beating (finally) Novak and Rafa. But he also struggled against them. The loss to Rafa in Oz in 2022 seemed to shatter him a bit. He recuperated a bit, then he didn't. He doesn't suffer from an outsized ego. He suffers from lack of belief. And now lack of results are making this less interesting for him. He's also got 2 kids. His soul suffers for different reasons. If he hangs 'em up sooner than later, it might be because of lack of confidence in his game, in the face of Sincaraz. But I don't think he's bitter in the same way this "darkness" is coming to Zed and the Greek. They act like someone took something from them they should have had.

You're right, and I tried to differentiate them - saying that the entitlement/expectation was more Zverev and Tsitsipas...perhaps it is more accurate to say "entirely" those two.

I do group Medvedev with the other two as part of a Little Three, as I consider them the best three players of their generation. We could use my generational model of players born 1994-98, or we could be a bit broader and say post-Thiem and pre-Sinner. We could also combine them with Thiem as a Little Four in the post-Big Four era, but pre-Sincaraz group. Either way, you get the point. I see them as a step above the rest of the top players of that generation - Rublev, Fritz, Ruud, Berrettini, Hurkacz, etc. They are a better triad (or quartet) than Dimitrov-Raonic-Nishikori, at least as far as accomplishments go, but a far cry from attaining anything resembling "bigness."

But yeah, Medvedev is in a different category and there are things about his record that are truly impressive. I rank him among the better one-Slam winners in Open Era history: in a similar group as players like Gerulaitis, Muster, Chang, Ivanisevic, Roddick, and Del Potro. "First Tier One-Slam Winners," if you will. And while his 1-5 record in Slam finals is painful (for him, at least), it is impressive in its own right. Reaching six Slam finals is no small feat - only 17 players have appeared in more in the Open Era, and the lowest Slam title count among those 17 is Andy Murray and Arthur Ashe with 3. He's also tied for 23rd in big titles (8), with Ashe, Vilas and Chang...all players in the "near to lesser greats" category.

To put all that another way, Medvedev probably has the best career of anyone born between Novak Djokovic in 1987 and Jannik Sinner in 2001. Other players born in that time were similarly, or even more talented (e.g. Del Potro, Thiem, even Zverev, etc), but Medvedev has the best career. He may not be a true all-time great, but he's close to the top 20 of the Open Era - probably somewhere in the 21-30 range. Not bad!

p.s. He's also a lot more likable of a human being than Zverev and Tsitsipas!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Moxie will be pleased,
Munar backing up his win from the other day taking out the streaky Bublik with a 3 set win over Marozan 62 63 76(9)

 

[El Dude]

Glad to see Mensik win again. He had that great run--and title--in Miami, then fell off. He showed a very high level in Miami and I think will become one of the better players of the next decade....I wouldn't be surprised if, 10 years from now, he's compiled the fourth best record after Alcaraz, Sinner, and Fonseca; or, at the least, he's a serious candidate for #4 in the new era (along with Draper, maaaaybe Rune, and one or two others).

Let us not forget that he's the youngest guy on tour with a big title - he and Rune become the 13th and 14th players of the Open Era to win their first big titles as teenagers. Of the other 12, only Mancini and Andrei Medvedev never won a Slam and of the 10 who did win Slams, only Chang won a single Slam. Meaning, 75% of players before Mensik/Rune who won big titles as teenagers became not only multi-Slam winners, but all-time greats. Or to group them:

Teenage Big Title Winners
Slamless (2): Mancini, A Medvedev
One Slam (1): Chang
All-time Greats (9): Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz
TBD (2): Rune, Mensik

Again, of the 12 whose careers are either over or all-time status is largely determined (Novak, Carlos), 16.7% (2) had good careers, 8.3% (1) had an excellent career, and 75% went on to become all-time greats.

A precedent of 12 previous players is a small enough sample size to prevent those percentages from being predictive, but it is rather than noteworthy, especially the 75% figure.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Glad to see Mensik win again. He had that great run--and title--in Miami, then fell off. He showed a very high level in Miami and I think will become one of the better players of the next decade....I wouldn't be surprised if, 10 years from now, he's compiled the fourth best record after Alcaraz, Sinner, and Fonseca; or, at the least, he's a serious candidate for #4 in the new era (along with Draper, maaaaybe Rune, and one or two others).

Let us not forget that he's the youngest guy on tour with a big title - he and Rune become the 13th and 14th players of the Open Era to win their first big titles as teenagers. Of the other 12, only Mancini and Andrei Medvedev never won a Slam and of the 10 who did win Slams, only Chang won a single Slam. Meaning, 75% of players before Mensik/Rune who won big titles as teenagers became not only multi-Slam winners, but all-time greats. Or to group them:

Teenage Big Title Winners
Slamless (2): Mancini, A Medvedev
One Slam (1): Chang
All-time Greats (9): Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz
TBD (2): Rune, Mensik

Again, of the 12 whose careers are either over or all-time status is largely determined (Novak, Carlos), 16.7% (2) had good careers, 8.3% (1) had an excellent career, and 75% went on to become all-time greats.

A precedent of 12 previous players is a small enough sample size to prevent those percentages from being predictive, but it is rather than noteworthy, especially the 75% figure.

Good 3rd round match for the young guns
Mensik (15) vs Cobolli (22)

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

We could use my generational model of players born 1994-98

Funny, if we used 6-year generations, we could get

1989-1994 - Lost Gen I
1995-2000 - Lost Gen II
2001-2006 - Sinner, Alcaraz, Fonseca, etc.

 

[Fiero425]

Funny, if we used 6-year generations, we could get

1989-1994 - Lost Gen I
1995-2000 - Lost Gen II
2001-2006 - Sinner, Alcaraz, Fonseca, etc.

Hey, when should I expect Venmo $$?? I copyrighted Lost Gen II quite a while ago! B/C of the longevity & excellence of the Big 3, it's produced unprecedented under-achievement by 2 eras of top tier players! OTTH, we should have all expected more out of Dimitrov, Cilic, Kei, Thiem, Medvedev, Zverev, & Tsitsipas among others! Over that same period, Murray overachieved by a lot! Not just winning 3 majors overcoming a trio of ATG's, but he picked up quite a few Masters-1000 Chps.! I was never a fan of Murray's; esp. w/ the defensive way he played the game, but I have to give him props! I hope we aren't getting carried away promoting Fonseca! Sincaraz is doing their thing, but remains to be seen how long they can hang in there w/ the extraordinary rigors of the tour! Few things are predictable these days!

 

[don_fabio]

Draper is struggling against Cilic, down a set and a break.