Carlos Alcaraz’s meteoric rise in 2022 has understandably ignited tennis passions, but he’s not Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic 2.0. At least not yet.
Carlos Alcaraz is an exciting tennis player. There is no doubt about it. The Spanish teenager is brimming with potential. He’s fast and agile. He has proven to be a fearless competitor, and there is that enviable, tantalizing return game. There are slam titles in his probably not-too-distant future.
This 19-year-old Spaniard has accomplished in a few months what nobody else has since 2004; he has supplied an actual face to the future of men’s tennis that isn’t Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, or Roger Federer’s. Except for Nadal’s countless injuries and the occasional Djokovic mental walkabout when he seems to forget how to play tennis, there hasn’t truly been a moment when the tennis community has collectively announced, “This is it! A changing of the guard!” and believed it.
Until now.
But (you knew there had to be a “but” in there, right?), we’ve quite gotten ahead of ourselves. You want to call Carlitos Alcaraz exciting? You betcha! Count me in. And as much as I’ve been a proponent for enjoying the never-seen-before-and-never-will-again collective dominance of the Big Three while we still can, I’ll even stipulate that men’s tennis has needed Carlos Alcaraz or a player like him for a while.
The onslaught of Alcaraz hype this week, though? It’s flat-out absurd.
First, there’s this from TennisTV, the subscription streaming service of the ATP:
And Babolat, the manufacturer that has supplied Nadal with rackets since he burst onto the scene in 2004:
And perhaps most egregious of all, this quote from Martina Navratilova:
No. I’m sorry. Just…no. After a couple of months of winning, I’m supposed to just…what? Admit that Carlitos Alcaraz is:
- A Federer/Nadal/Djokovic version 2.0
- The new King of Clay
- An UPGRADED version of Novak Djokovic
He might be those things one day. I’ve been a tennis fan long enough to remember Pete Sampras in his heyday and when Federer broke his record of 14 slam titles back in 2009. In the 90s and early naughts, 14 was thought to be untouchable. We know now that each of the Big Three shattered it…and Djokovic and Nadal have the DOUBLE career Grand Slam.
So…yeah. Nothing is impossible. But come on, now.
Forget the fact that the dude has zero slam titles, because I have no doubt that he will rectify that in short order. Forget that Nadal — playing with a broken rib — beat him just a month and a half ago. What this week’s hyperbolic nonsense demonstrates is a laughable example of recency bias (placing more importance on recent rather than historical events) coupled with the scarcity of legitimate heirs apparent in men’s tennis.
We’ve forgotten just how extraordinary the Big Three are because they made what they’ve done seem normal. Nadal has been in the top 10 for 17 years. SEVENTEEN years. Djokovic was a single win away from a calendar-year Grand Slam in 2021. That’s not normal. I can’t stress enough just how not normal those things are. But we’ve watched them do it for so long, the narrative has become “well OF COURSE they’re still winning. Because that’s what they do.”
I don’t know what Alcaraz’s legacy will be, but I can assure you this: his place in tennis will not be singularly decided by the fact that he has a “better ball out wide” than Djokovic does. The quality of a player’s strokes alone are only part of the equation.
His legacy will be tangled with his tenacity, his ability to evolve, his resolve, and his susceptibility to injury. It will be about his movement, his resilience, his determination (or lack thereof) to keep going when he’s suffering mentally, emotionally, and physically.
It’ll be down to the quality of his opponents and his eventual ability to handle worldwide fame. Oh — and consistency. These things are nothing less than Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer have brought to the table for the last 18 years, and they will be required of any player looking to surpass them.
Is Carlos Alcaraz that player? I have no idea; nor does anyone else. It’s possible nobody is and never will be. So let’s at least try for a dash of perspective with our large helping of enthusiasm.
Thanks, Cheryl. Well put!
Let me add that tennis does not need ONE new great talent. It needs two or three! Competition is the life blood of the game. And, as Rafa said, there isn’t going to be a rivalry between him and Alcatraz. He’s too old to start a new rivalry. So is Federer. Djokovic? Probably not. He’s also a bit long in the tooth.
Maybe Alcatraz will inspire the current wannabees to work a bit harder at improving their games.
Yes. I have long been of the opinion that Fedalovic are what they are because of each other. I think this probably especially true of Rafole.
Thank you Cheryl for this laudable effort torestite perspective in the midst of all this hyperbole. It is much needed now.
For myself, having watched this sport all my life I, I have learned to try to see the big picture. The recency bias you reference is quite obvious. Alcazar is in the midst of a hot streak. Itās been exciting to see. But all streaks end at some point. There is a kind of void in menās tennis now. With Meddy out for an injury, Rafa just coming back from injury, Novak coming back from an extended exile because of being unvaccinated, Berrettini being injured, Thiem just coming back from a long injury layoff, Tsitsipas and Zverev being up and down and inconsistent, Alcazar has been able to take advantage and go on a tear.
I appreciate that you reminded us of how not normal the big 3ās achievements really are. That should not be forgotten. Having lived through decades of tennis, I have seen much greatness. I have also seen players crashand burn into obscurity. The dominance of the big 3 has been extraordinary. Their consistency is legendary. This has been probably the most exceptional era in the history of tennis.
When I was a young girl watching tennis, I thought that Laver was a God. Roy Emerson, StanSmith, Tony Roche, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe, Pancho Gonzales were his peers. I thought that was a great era. But then there were others who came along. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg,Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg. Of course PeteSampras, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin. Right up to the current era. We may never see anything like it again.
I dokniw that there is much involved in the making of a great champion. Will Alcazar be another one? That remains to be seen. But he has to earn it. It is not just given. His story is only beginning to be written. Let it play out before we anoint him as the next great player or the next Rafa. I donāt think there will ever be the next Rafa. That may never happen.
But let us not forget this yearās AO. When Rafa somehow pulled off a mirage after coming back from 6 months off. After struggling with a foot issue for which there is no cure.
Keep things in perspective and donāt forget the greatness we have already seen.
Exactly Ramara!! I concur!!!
Very well written Cheryl!!
Itās absurd the level of hype Carlos is receiving!! We all want him to be successful and want someone to support after the big three but there is no need to toss the big 3 aside like they r the dogās breakfast! What has Carlos achieved? Beating a subpar Rafa and Novak at a Masters tournament?!! When Rafa was beating Roger constantly no one came close to hyping Rafa that much, as a matter of fact ppl refused to!! Hardly anyone believed that Rafa would surpass Rogerās GS tally, and even when he did they still diminished the achievement! But Carlos who has not even reached a GS final is the ānew king on the hillā!! Plz donāt make me laugh!!! I know in the next few weeks I wonāt be the one with pie on my face!!!!!
Thank you Cheryl! Finally somebody that has the guts to say it instead of foaming at the mouth at the “wonders” of Alcaraz. It’s so laughably absurd.
Even some rafans are lost in this delusion and are even terrified by this kid with respect to Rafa.
Rafa comes back from injury and plays him and loses in 3 sets and all of a sudden Alcaraz is the king of clay. I’ve seen his game and he’s good but please he’s no where near Rafa at his best on clay or Djokovic on any surface for that matter.
Somebody has not even reached a grandslam quarterfinal and all of a sudden they have the greatest game ever, no one can beat them. Give me a break. Djokovic was a mess against him bc djoko is still trying to find his form having played so little tennis and the same from Rafa who hasn’t found himself since the rib injury and almost lost to goffin of all people on clay.
One thing amongst others this kid doesn’t have is a tennis brain. He plays the same game in every surface. Never adjusts or alters his game when it’s not going his way and doesn’t even have a game plan when facing different opponents. Just the same old same old.
The next gen are really a joke and so inconsistent hence why he has no rival yet. And of course the hype is getting to his head as expected.
People are so delusional some times it’s just ridiculous. Medvedev won the US open n everyone was predicting him winning multiple slams this year being world number 1 for years and we know what happened and his hernia surgery just prolonged his misfortune. Same with thiem. Consistency in winning slams is what merits hype not winning several masters tournament beating whoever.
Happy,
Thank you! We need a reality check. I blame the commies on the tennis channel for slobbering all over the place searching for more adjectives about Alcaraz. Jim Courier said he will be #1. Now he is on the list of favorites for RG! A few years ago it was Thiem.
Not too long ago people were comparing Meddy to Novak. Now that heās out with an injury itās like nobody talks about him.
Rafa is not the King of Clay because he lost to Alcaraz at Madrid? They were saying it when Thiem beat him at clay court tournaments. Not now after his lengthy injury layoff.
Let Alcaraz earn it. They are putting him in with the other favorite contenders at RG. Letās see what he does there.
Cheryl,
I wrote a lengthy comment addressing the history of this sport that I have watched all my life. But it didnāt post. Maybe it was too long. But I tried to keep things in perspective. The hyperbole is becoming unbearable. In that post I brought up Meddy. He has earned his way with a win against Novak at the USO. People said Novak had played too much,was out of sorts. Baloney! No NextGen beats Novak in straight sets at a slam! Then he was in the final at the AO. We all know what happened. He was even #1 for a brief time. No one has done that except the top four since about 2005! Yet now no one talks about him. He had a hernia problem. So he just disappears from the conversation? Heās 25. He has a lot more years ahead of him. But he has separated himself from the other NextGens. He has gone further. He has earned it.
There is a void now near the top of menās tennis with Rafa coming bavk from injury, Novak coming back from a lengthy exile because he was unvaccinated, Thiem just coming back from a long layoff due to injury, Berrettini injured, Tsitsipas and Zverev up and down and inconsistent. Alcaraz has taken advantage of it. Neither Rafa or Novak were lose to their best. He capitalized. So he is riding a hot streak. But streaks end. There are ups and downs in every playerās career. He needs to earn it. Win a slam. Try to take out Rafa or Novak in a best of five set match.
I am not as sure as you as to when he will do it. But that will be an important step. Do not anoint him with greatness before he has earned it. Recency bias is a huge issue here. We need to restore persoective. People do take what the big 3 have done as normal. But itās not. We should never forget that. Their years at the top, consistency and records all mean something. Can we remember Rafa winning the AO in January with a miracle after coming back from six months off with an incurable foot condition?
I donāt know what will happen with this kid. His story is still to be told. But we should revere and respect the 3 greats who have given us so much and who all have records that well may stand forever.
Cheryl,
I forgot to thank you for another excellent piece. Much needed right now.
I need to apologize for the two long double posts. I did not see my first post at all, so I wrote another one.
Sorry.
great blog. Good balance of not getting sucked into the hype but also not discounting what he is doing.
also great point by @Ramara
hopefully some of the current stars who are slightly older than him will be able to step up and challenge him after the Big 3 are gone
Well said Cheryl!š
Iāll add longevity to the list. All the big three are in it for the long haul, and all three managed to stay in top ten for a long, long time! Fed is 900+ weeks in top ten, Rafa 800+, Djoko 700+? With Rafa in top ten for consecutive 800+ weeks, ie consecutive 16 to 17 years without falling out (of top ten)!
I heard one commentator mentioned this stats and the other one mentioned Alcaraz, that he may be the one to match Rafaās consecutive top ten stats! I was like, are you sure? How could you be sure 17 years down the road??
The hype is just ridiculous! Now letās look at how Rafa won his clay court events in his early days for example, he didnt need to go the distance to win his matches. Look at Alcaraz on clay, how many times he needed to go the distance!
While Rafa dominates on clay and only needs to fight hard now that heās getting older; Alcaraz doesnāt dominate but has to fight hard to win his matches. Rafaās dominance on clay is unprecedented, not even the dominance of other players on other surfaces could compare to Rafaās clay court dominance, and I feel thatās the determining factor for Rafa to remain in top ten for so long without even dropping out once. Can Alcaraz do the same? I doubt it.
On the HCs, there will be more players who could challenge Alacaraz, the big servers especially on their good serving days; on grass too. Alcaraz has won four titles on clay and one on the HC, I feel heās better on clay than on the HC, so letās see how he does against the other top players on surfaces other than clay, before anointing him as the combined top three 2.0
Lucky,
Thank you for pointing out Rafaās matchless dominance on the clay. That is such an important aspect of his greatness. That is a big difference between young Rafa and Alcaraz. Rafa was so extraordinary in the way he won his matches. Your point about longevity was also well taken. The hardest thing is to stay on top for years. That is another sign of true greatness.
I also want to thank Ramara. As Ricky said, she made a very good point. What is tennis without real competition? I remember how frustrated I was when Fed came along and won everything. Andy Roddick lost the match to Fed before he got on the court. That was the time I finally stopped watching tennis. Itwas only because people kept insisting that I watch this young Spanish player named Nadal, that I finally gave I and watched the 2007 Wimbledon. That was all it took. Someone could actually guve Fed a real match. Competition!
I sincerely hope that the other NextGens will redouble their efforts and bring their best. Tennis needs it. I donāt think anyone is discounting what Alcaraz is doing. I do think some of us are just unhappy about the absurd hype. It is just way over the top.
I am not ready to anoint Alcaraz as the combined top three 2.0. I do not think he will match Rafaās consecutive top ten stats.
For me, what I find extraordinary about Rafa is that despite his propensity for injuries he is still the leader in GSs and still one of the most consistent players in tennis history!! Could u imagine if Rafa had not missed so many months off tour what his achievements would have been?!! I mean that is not even a joke!! And even after he comes from injury he is still able to play at a high level almost instantly and going deep in tournaments!! When I think about it, RaFaās history of injuries have not done him too badly, lol!!!
Sure, lets throw Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem and Tsitsipas under the bus when they have done so much with their careers, laughable.
Thatās my point! We should not throw all of them under the bus! I sure am not doing it. I gave credit to Meddy for what he has done so far. I talked about Thiem. Meddy is not going anywhere. He has the game and especially the mental strength to be competitive. I hope that Thiem will come back from his injury and regain his form. I want these young guys to give it their all. We need them to bring their best.
I did not read your point, I was replying to the blog, glad you agree. For me Thiem before he got injured was right up there, he was challenging for every title, he was at his peak, he’s the best of the lot when in peak form, he’s not so young anymore at 28 though, he’s always been grouped in with the younger guys, but he’s actually older, I hope he can regain that form again.
I’d also like to point out remember when everyone was hyping up Sinner and fawning over him and saying how great he was, how he was going to be the next Federer and such, players and media alike, but he has not even come close to living up to it, I know he’s still young and can improve, but I’ve not been impressed with him at all, I’m not seeing a future great here, so now they are all over Alcaraz.
The hype is crazed but it’s also fantastic for tennis — and especially for drawing in casual fans. I don’t think anyone is dismissing the abilities of Thiem, Meddy, Tsitsipas, etcetera–they are all going to continue to be in the hunt for titles and slams–but none of them make for a completely thrilling media frenzy like an as-yet uncomplicated teenaged boy wonder.
It also gives the tennis media hope that there’s something beyond The Big Three that might bring in viewers. People love a phenom, they love youthful exuberance, they love a record breaker who seems to have come out of the blue–and Alacaraz has all that in ways none of the others do.
Other than a few coaching violations, he is right now without controversy, certain not true of Zverev, Medvedev and Tsitsipas, who are each much harder for the media to haype. He hasn’t made questionable statements or been called out for behavior on or off court. That might all change. But for now, he’s just too fun for the media to ignore. And that is much better for tennis’s future than the same old same old.
As for Carlos himself … that’s a different story. It will almost certainly make his life harder and he will have to learn to deal with the extreme fame only a handful of tennis stars achieve. There will be plenty of bumps in the road ahead even if his inspired play continues.
I get that there is excitement with this kid. He has behaved better so far than some of the other young guys. He gets a little over the top with celebrating each point, but that is his enthusiasm.
My issue is putting him in with the top 3. Just no. That is where I draw the line. Enjoy this run of wins, get excited. Thatās fine. But I borrowed what Lucky said about him not being the combined three 2.0. The top three have earned their place in tennis history. Let this kid write his own story.
I also think that the hyperbole is not good for this kid. There is pressure with success. It is at times not easy to live with the fame and expectations.
What looks genuinely new to me about Alcaraz is the combination of power and touch. Particularly the massive forehand with what already seems to be one of the best drop shots in the game. After losing to him at the USO last year, Tsitsipas said he had never played someone who hits the ball so hard. That sets up the drop shot perfectly, which really takes a mental toll on the opponent. I wouldn’t say Alcaraz over-uses it. It’s pretty unpredictable, which is why it’s such a weapon.
“A dash of perspective”….very well said, and very much needed….but then again, he may very well be “The New King in Town”. I saw him play 2X out at Indian wells, and he was VERY impressive….but so were Kecmonovic, Sinner, Rudd….and even Holgar Rune….lots of young talent on the horizon!
There’s no doubt that the raw materials are there for Alcaraz. Great game. Great mentality – and as a former JC Ferrero fan…a great coach! š I was thinking about Del Potro having many of those qualities…in addition to joints constructed mostly from delicate, fine crystal….
Del Potro unfortunately had the curse of being a bit too overall large of a person (not just tall but solid) which puts a lot of extra stress on the joints for tennis regardless of style of play. The first time I saw him play in person I was stunned he could move the way he did with his body mass, but it obviously had a price. Alcaraz being more compact will hopefully have an easier go of it, and also hopefully won’t be as unlucky. Agree that there is some of the joy there of the early days of Delpo.
Alcaraz is the best player in the world right now. Tsitsipas knows it and Zverev has conceded it, and I’m quite certain that Nadal and Djokovic now see him as the biggest test on the other side of a tennis court.
Alcaraz didnt even play that well and he still took care of the two GOATS. His upside potential is enormous.
I’d say he’s the in-form player in the world right now, although I wouldn’t put him ahead of Nadal or Djokovic as far as RG prospects. Especially Nadal, because 1) Madrid is a faster court where he’s less dominant, 2) He’s coming back from injury, 3) He tends to get stronger & stronger as the clay season goes on.
Agree that Alcaraz can play even better than he did at Madrid, but you can almost inevitably bank on both Rafa and Djoker raising their levels for RG.
Thanks for your subjective analysis and weighing up of things. You nailed it with pin point accuracy.
If you think Nadal and Djokovic are going to win RG, show us your bet ticket. As the saying goes “put you money where your mouth is”
That’s right, you don’t bet. You just troll/snipe in forums and undermine people that know more than you.
And then, when you get it completely wrong, you disappear and do it again. Rinse and repeat.
Who’s trolling on this page and posting under a fake name? Just you. If personal opinions on tennis matches make you feel angry and upset, then perhaps it’s time for a new hobby.
You’re an inherently dishonest schemer and colluder.
Personal opinion or premeditated undermining?
Low grade scm
The raw materials, eh. You make it sound like you know what you’re talking about Cheryl. Thats what you guys are good at; marketing and sounding like you know what you’re talking about but rarely backing it up with any substance or results.
I reckon Martina would know just a little bit more than you given she was one of the most dominant female players the sport has ever seen.
and your understanding of Del Potro is amateurish and that’s putting it nicely. Alacaraz and Del Potro are like chalk and cheese.
I’ve been checking here to make sure that no one is pretending to be me again.
These comments don’t sound like sanju.
Am not getting into comments otherwise before RG as am determined to get work done.
šššš šššš
FO SLT
Low grade SLT. How’s your tsitsi going?
amy,
Itās not Sanju. I knew it immediately. A troll is signing in with other peopleās names. It is disgusting.
Nny, no of course it’s not sanju! Ricky please can you let us know who left these awful comments under sanju’s name? Is it guest? It was guest who posted as me a while back. Sanju doesn’t deserve to have these comments with his name attached.
Thanks!!!
Ok sorry I only just read the above comments. Ricky has changed some of them from sanju to guest so it is him. I thought so. He and anon are clearly the same person.
I see he has posted some vile stuff using Elizabeth ‘s name. Well obviously we would know it wasn’t her but I am sure she would not like this being posted with her name attached.
So Guest is the troll and should be kicked out of here!
We need lots of young talent. I want to see these kids reach their potential. It will make for some e great tennis.
Spot on post from Cheryl, one of the best Iāve seen here so far.
Alcaraz certainly has a lot of potential, but thatās nowhere near enough to have similar achievements as the āBig 3ā. There are much more stories of wasted talent than stories of players truly fulfilling their potential. Can he handle his success properly? Can he overcome adversity? Can he stay motivated and healthy? For how long? Can he keep improving?
For now, letās see how he chews a period when heās likely not going to win anything important (until the summer HC swing).
The good news for him is that he probably wonāt be continuously stopped in his tracks by the 3 greats, he arrived on the big stage in a favorable moment.
Hopefully he is able to have a good laugh at all of the nonsense thatās written about him, keep working hard and not getting ahead of himself.
That’s a good point, Cristian. He hit his stride at a good time. Federer will be retiring in short order, and neither Djokovic nor Nadal are 24 anymore. Now we’ll see if a new trio materializes from the ranks of the current teenagers.
Its a decent article by Cheryl though I thought the title let it down a bit.
Comparison with Nadal is natural for obvious reasons apart from the fact that he also has quite big elements of Fed and Nole’s game there. In fact as he get older, he might even have a better serve than all three . Theres no doubt though that we can say he is going to win Slams with out any of the hyperbole we’re used to about other next genners
And as stated by seasoned poster above, its really boring when one player has no competition, but isnt that exactly what they like about Rafa and all the bite marks on a certain coupe de mousquetaires : shrug š
Since when does Rafa have no competition at RG? He has had his share of tough matches. Who said there is no competition? I donāt get that at all. What about Fed at Wimbledon? What about Novak at the AO? No competition? They each have the slam that is most suited to their games.
Or is it just another attempt to diss Rafa and his fans.
It depends what you mean by ‘ no competition’ .Why would Fed dominating at Wimby or over Roddick anywhere be more boring than Rafa at the French or Novak at the AO? I didn’t get your point .Most people who were fans of Fed during the so called Weak Era were fans because of his beautiful game.He was much more watchable than Sampras who was totally dominant but had a lot of people changing channels.Its not that simple .
I’ll not mention the fact that they slowed the grass down and that led to more competition..
Ha ha Big Al, I was the one who switched channel when watching Fed’s dominance over others, in particular over Roddick! That’s how boring it had become with Fed’s dominance (because I didn’t even need to see the match to know the end result)!
Thankfully a young Spaniard appeared, to challenge Fed, and so suddenly tennis had become interesting again (at least for me)!
Lucky,
Thank you! I am glad that was not the only one who found the utter lack of competition to be unwatchable.
Yes, thank God for Rafa, who was not intimidated by Fed right from the beginning.
I’m not convinced he’ll have a better serve than the big3, although I’m sure he can improve it a lot. The pace seems to come from his raw strength rather than particularly sound technique/fluid service motion. He also doesn’t hit his spots very well. He has (unsurprisingly) more of a traditional clay-courter serve, but with added power. Of course he’s got years to work on these things and it’s very hard to tell how good he could be, but if you asked me ‘will he have a better serve than Federer?’ I’d say no.
I think it’s too early to say much about what his competition will look like. As good as he is, as complete as his game might appear, he’s still a very talented teenager yet to make his mark at a single slam. No need for consternation or hype about who his rivals might be, how he’ll ever be beaten, or how many slams he might rack up.
I’d agree with that.If he serves as well as Fed that would be really something. At age 19 plenty of time .
Yeah he’s already a frightening prospect without a Fed-esque serve, that’s for sure
Yeah, I agree Big Al. Im very agreeable with you.
That’s very insightful of you given Federer probably has the best serve the sport has ever seen.
Please keep them coming; I’m really soaking up the learning experience.
This is too funny!
š
OK. Having the best or fastest serve isnt enough, its about producing it on big points- something Fed and Sampras were so good at.Alcaraz might never be technically as good on serve but he has that same mentality .
So Alcaraz retires from Rome to rest ahead of RGā¦ when did a teenage Rafa ever do this? Unless his ankle is really an issue (I doubt it), taking a two weeks break ahead of a GS does not seem like a good idea to me. Especially when youāre a roll and you are going to play in quite different conditions.
Well, obviously he is not Rafa, and it’s also different times. He had the three biggest wins of his career in a row, rolled his ankle twice, had equal parts physical and emotional exhaustion, and possibly didn’t want to have his new aura broken by losing in early rounds. Those seem like things to weigh against a not very long break — at 19 he’s hardly going to get rusty in 2 weeks.
But in any case I think if people don’t want to overhype him, it’s also good to not expect him to do what Nadal did as a teenager. Nadal was Nadal and playing in Nadal’s time. Carlos is going to have his own path, whatever it might be. Whether his choices prove to work as well for him as Rafa’s have is something no one will know for a long, long, long time.
In fact, Rafa did exactly that at 18 and 19. In those dim distant days Hamburg was the last Master before RG and Rafa was coming off wins in MC, Barca and Rome, back when the final was best of FIVE sets at MC and Rome. He was exhausted after those finals in Rome and skipped Hamburg as a result. Both Fed and Rafa skipped Hamburg following their Rome classic in 2006. That sounded the death knell for Masters five set finals. Pity, since both of those Rome finals are among the best matches ever.
I always had the impression that Rafa avoided Hamburg mainly because it played somehow different from MC, Barcelona, Rome and RG. I do remember those 5 set finals though. Also, there was no bye in the first round. So playing 12 days out of 14 including two five setters would have been extreme. I forgot about this, the conditions were different then so itās hard to compare Rafa with Alcaraz in this aspect.
The problem was always the back to back Masters, not the 5 sets Masters finals, which separated men from boys and should have been kept.
I still think that playing RG immediately after Madrid is not a good idea, but my money were not on Alcaraz for this RG anyway.
I just read what Novax said about Alcaraz being the No.1 player right now. Mind games, the Serb is first in the rankings and Rafa is first in the Race so what is he talking about? š
Rafa had to play 6+5+6 matches on clay back then (MC 6, Barcelona 5, Rome 6), ie 17 matches before RG. He’s been reaching the finals and winning them all from 2005 to 2007, that’s good enough warm up matches played and won before going to RG.
The Masters finals were Bo5 back then, it’s in 2007 that they changed them to Bo3, and with first round Bye for the top 8 seeded players.
It’s in 2007 that Rafa started playing at Hamburg, and that year he reached the final at Hamburg and lost to Fed, so Rafa had made all five finals that year on clay, from MC to RG, winning all but one (Hamburg) of them! He amassed 5100 ranking points (calculated based on current points system) out of 5500 available, that’s very, very impressive! Not forgetting, MC/Barcelona were back to back weeks, and Rome/Hamburg too, with only one week break between Barcelona and Rome.
The only other time Rafa amassed 5100 points during the clay season was in 2013, where he lost the final at MC to Djoko, before winning at Barcelona, Madrid, Rome and then at RG.
He had also won all three clay Masters in 2010, skipping Barcelona, before winning the FO.
I seriously doubt anyone else could match Rafa’s dominance and achievements on clay!
Or match the boredom factor
How often was the result even in question on clay ?
At least on grass the points are shorter
Ha ha again Fed’s dominance over the field (before a certain Spaniard burst onto the scene) matched the boredom factor!
At least the Spaniard dominates only on one surface, back then, Fed’s dominance was on all surfaces other than clay, that made for even more boredom!
It’s no wonder tennis become more interesting with first the Spaniard challenging TMF and then Djoko and Murray joining in the challenge.
Lucky me. I became a Nadal fan during Wimbledon 2008 so I missed the “boring” years. Although if you were bored by Rome 2005 and 2006 you’re a hopeless case. š
You were lucky!
Some people are hopeless cases!
š
What was boring it? Like doing the Wimby-Us open double four times.Fantastic.And giving Nadal a fair match in 2006 7 RG finals. He played attacking tennis on clay what could be more exciting
Lol, one of the main reasons Rafa amassed such a following was precisely due to the boredom of Rogerās dominance!! And Rafa received the same amount of hate bcoz he arrested that dominance!! I can certainly attest to that boredom as I stopped watching tennis bcoz of Rogerās dominance and when Rafa exploded onto the scene it was a breathe of fresh air, added to his exciting play and charisma!!!!!ā And I have never since looked back!! Like I keep on saying, āno Rafa no tennisā!! š
Someone said he is the in-form player now. Forget about no. 1. You get there by winning and earning ranking points. Like Meddy when he became no. 1. He could get there again depending on what Novak does here.
I have no idea what Novak was going on about. I pay no attention.
Itās easy to c who is #1! Letās just c who has the highest winning % for the year!! I can calculate it but Iām having lunch, but I bet Rafa is on top!!! And would be surprised if Alcaraz is second!
What’s so exciting about attacking tennis when your opponents couldn’t even played decently to counter the attack?
It’s the appearance of those three younger players – Rafa, Djoko and Murray – who were as quick if not quicker than Fed that provided actual competition for Fed, countering his attacks with their strong defence plus counterattacks that made their matches more interesting and exciting!
Seriously, I don’t find Fed’s tennis exciting, it’s only when he faced serious competition from the younger players, or someone like Nalby, that his matches become interesting and not so predictable.
And also the surfaces got slower which helped the defensive players.
I could make exactly the same point about Nadal and Djoko not having to contend with attacking players on really fast surfaces.
It all comes down to taste which style of tennis you prefer to watch.I like s mixture of net play and artistry with aggressive baselining mixed in.
I think u do Feds opposition ‘couldnt play decently’ a disservice. Nadal and co happen to be the three best defensive players ever.
That is just nonsense. Remember Andy Roddick? He couldnāt beat Fed. Marat Safin? Very talented and did beat Fed at the AO but only won a total of two slams in his career. Lleyton Hewitt?
Your bias against Rafa is showing. Big time.
Really.A player can only play whose in front of them .By saying opposition was weak and you even stopped watching tennis – not exactly flattering to Feds achievements – of course I wouldn’t suggest u were biased
Hewitt? He did beat Sampras at the US among otherthings
We all know a player can only play who is in front of them. Nobody is blaming Fed for the lack of challenges to his dominance. I was very frustrated with Roddick did not being able to overcome the jitters when he played Fed. As I said before. He list the matches before he even got on the court.
Lack of competition is not good for any sport. I watched Fed for a few years. Itās not like I just decided to stop watching when he was dominating. It was a decision that I made after several years. The other players did not seem able or willing to take on Fed and make a match of it. Until Rafa came along. I think the contrast in styles between them was also a plus. Their matches were not only competitive, but the difference styles of play made them enjoyable to watch.
Fed has said the challenge from Rafa made him a better player. They both lifted their games. Then Novak came along and raised his level of play. We all were the better for it. Fed was still able to make his mark and set many records.
I have my favourite players and I biased for them. Arent you?
NNY, always the high moral ground on this forum, what a hypocrite.
That was a cheap shot and nasty. Itās not about the high moral ground and I have had with both your insinuating digs and outright insults.
Look in the mirror if you want to see hypocrisy. That was unjustified.
I apologise for using the word hypocrite it was too strong.
However what’s wrong with being ‘biased’ as you put it. We don’t all have to like the same player.
‘Whatās so exciting about attacking tennis when your opponents couldnāt even played decently to counter the attack?’
Drivel. Fed is one of the best attacking player in history , end of story. He never got to play much on really fast courts.
Fed the best attacking tennis player in history? Iām not convinced about that, especially on quick courts. There were so many greats before him who excelled on quick courts; to say that Fed is the best attacking tennis player ahead of them, well thatās not only bias but sound like bullshit to me!
Fed himself benefited from the slowing down of the courts, something his peers, like Roddick, Nalby, Blake, Hewitt, Safin couldnāt do as they couldnāt adapt well. Had the Wimbledon grass court being a bit quicker, who knows Roddick could have won Wimbledon a few times over Fed!
Alright, you said Fed is ONE of the best attacking players in history, not THE best attacking player; I give you that, and apologise for not reading it correctly.
Still, like I said he benefitted from the slowing down of the courts too, especially during the period when his peers couldnāt adapt to the slowing down, and the likes of Rafa, Djoko and Murray were still young and up and coming.
Nalby had the better of Fed until 2006 when Fed drew level and then moved ahead; Roddick managed to beat Fed in 2003 but couldnāt do that anymore later on. Hewitt too had the upper hand until 2004 when Fed turned the table against him.
Fed had their numbers in the later years when the courts were getting slower and slower. To say that Fed would benefit from the fast HCs would not be true against his peers.
Against the trio of Rafa, Djoko and Murray, as I mentioned, they also grew up playing on fast courts during their juniors days, so Iām not sure had the courts remained fast ones, they would not adapt accordingly. Itās just that theyāre quicker than most guys, especially Fedās peers, hence theyāre great at defending despite having attacking weapons too.
The trioās matches vs Fed were certainly more competitive and more interesting than those one sided ones Fed had against his own peers.
Thanks for that .Some experts do say he the attacking players GOAT but I wouldn’t be that definite.
You obvuously know more about the early days of these players and what surface they brought up on- I was led to believe Murray played a lot on clay along with Djoko.
But there’s a lot of speculation there about players developing and courts slowing down at the same time,how their games would have evolved differently etc etc. It all sounds a bit vague .
I’d just say Fed generally does better against his main rivals the faster and lower bouncing the court.He also one of the few players to win sets against Rafa on clay- by attacking the net.
Al,
Thank you. I will leave it to you and Lucky to continue the discussion.
It’s a matter of taste, I agree.
The three younger guys could defend and counterattack, at least that made their matches vs Fed more interesting, certainly not one sided, unlike Fed’s peers (those from his age group).
Both Rafa and Murray could beat Fed on quick HCs in 2006 – Rafa at Dubai and Murray at Cincy; that year, Fed’s peers couldn’t even beat him, not even once!
Whether the courts were slowed down or not, the three young guys could and would adapt. There’s no reason to think that just because the courts were quick that they would not be able to defend and counterattack.
Rafa and Murray both have good hands, deft touches and good at the net; its because of the slowing down of the courts through the years that they played primarily from the baseline and not rushing to the net more often. Djoko’s net game had also improved after he had Becker as his coach.
The three of them may be among the last batch of players playing on quick courts during their junior days (in late 1990s to early 2000s when the non clay courts were still quick surfaces). Perhaps that may be why they could defend and counter attack on all surfaces, being young and adaptable whilst Fed’s peers couldn’t.
The later batch of juniors after them would be growing up playing on the slowed down courts and playing primarily a baseline game.
In spite of all that Nadal never adapted very well to low bouncing courts.Compared to the other three.Dubai could be the exception as it’s lively due to the desert air .
It’s speculation to say ‘ they would have adapted if..’
A quick look at the H2H on different surfaces should tell something.
And I really hope Alcaraz is going to be his own unique player than a Rafa clone.
Big Al, Rafa has had considerable success even on fast and low bouncing courts as well. The AO which had become slower in the early 2000s, have become much slicker and faster from 2017 onwards. But Rafa made it into three finals nevertheless, winning one of them this year and losing two of them against Fed and Novak. That’s not too shabby for someone who doesn’t exactly relish these kind of surfaces. However, as we all know, Rafa never really adapted to indoor hardcourts. That’s the one thing which he never managed to handle successfully. Part of the problem was, that most important indoor tournaments take place at the end of the season when he was often exhausted and burned out. But apart from this, indoor hardcourt is just not his cup of tea.
Btw, the AO have been even faster and slicker in the aera of Becker, Sampras et al, when the surface was made of rebound ace, if I remember correctly. That demanded a completely different game, since the racquets were very different, too. The huge servers had a great advantage. Becker managed to win his final slam trophy at the AO 1996 – 11 years after he won his first Wimby trophy and surprisingly at a time when Sampras was already in full GOAT mode. When I look back, I realize that I didn’t enjoy this kind of tennis as much as I have done for the last 20 years when the game went through dramatic changes. Back then the rallyes were simply too short or non-existent, if both players were great servers. Interestingly the FO back then were much slower than today – and very often that was also not very attractive, because many matches produced endless back-and-forth rallyes which were often not very spectacular, and they could be boring as well. I think that the last 20 years have not been too bad, and there were good reasons why changes had been made.
Hmm not sure I agree about the speed of the court at the AO. Rafa himself says he prefers fast hardcourts where the ball reacts to his spin. You can have high bouncing and low bouncing fast hardcourts.The indoor courts are usually the lower type so Rafa doesn’t do so well.
The rebound ace was like it’s name and suited Agassi who beat Sampras there twice but lost to him at us open low bouncing..He also beat Sampras at Indian Wells high bouncing.Similar to Nadal Fed really.
Look, how often Rafa played on indoor HCs? He only played them during end of season, the only exception was when he played at Rotterdam, lost once to Seppi and then reached the final in 2009, injured in the final and lost to Murray.
He played at Basel in 2015 in one of his worst seasons yet he reached the final and lost to non other than Fed! He played at Madrid on indoor HCs before it became a clay court event, won in 2005 (beating Lluby in the final), reached QF in 2006(lost to Berdych), QF in 2007 ( lost to Nalby who also beat Djoko in the SF and Fed in the final!). He reached the SF in 2008 and lost to Simon (Simon in those days was a tough opponent for anyone as heās also on the rise, reaching top ten that year. The same Simon also beat Fed at the TMC in Shanghai that year).
He hardly played at Paris Masters prior to 2007, reached the final there and lost to Nalby. In those years when he played there, he mainly lost to top ten players like Davy, Djoko, Ferrer, Stan and Zverev.
He was always near exhaustion by end of season ( perhaps because of his exploits on clay, season after season), and had to miss the Paris events often -skipped 2010, 2011 and 2014 due to exhaustion, or not playing due to injuries (2012, 2016, 2018, 2021) or withdrawn after reaching QF or SF (2017, 2019).
He hardly lost to non top ten players at these year end events; and at the WTFs, he was mainly stopped by Fed or Djoko in the finals or SFs when he was able to play (having to skip so many WTFs due to injuries despite qualifying for it for straight 16 years, he played in only 10 of them!).
Why he wonāt be able to adapt, should he have to play on indoor HCs throughout the season (when they are mandatory), instead of only at year end? With exhaustion and injuries he still could make at least the QFs most of the times when he played, so why is it unreasonable to think that he would do better when heās fit and healthy during the season?
It’s the same for all players end of season tiredness/lack of interest etc.
Rafa would no doubt win one or two of the fast indoors but it was never his thing.In fact any surface where the ball doesn’t react to his topspin .
I did post about the rebound ace but it didn’t come through. Like it’s name says it was bouncy and would suit Rafa as it did Agassi .Indian Wells another example
But, how often a player had to miss tournaments so often at year end due to injuries? Don’t tell me about his game style etc, for we know he has this congenital foot issue that can never be cured.
I do feel if he doesn’t have his foot issue, he would be healthier and his body is able to hold up better throughout his career. His injuries were mostly foot or knee related.
As for winning on indoor HCs, he would be able to win some events for sure, it’s just that he’s not going to dominate on them; the numbers would surely be better than what they are now.
We, there can be indoor grass and clay matches also- in the summer – and Ive heard it said that he lost on grass because of his knees – so its not all about the end of season tiredness/injury.
I have not commented here for a while, and I have to say, that the comment section seems to have seriously deteriorated! What is this about all those blatant impersonations?? Since mostly long time posters are under attack, it is fairly easy to detect the fraudulent comments. But isn’t it possible to stop this???
As to Alcaraz – he is on the roll right now, and he has all the ingredients for becoming on of the most successful players of the coming aera without the Big Three! The timing of his breakthrough is very fortunate for him, because the total dominance of the Big Three is basically over IMO. Fed won’t win more slams, and Rafa’s and Dokovic’s serial slam winning days are probably over, too. As we have seen at the AO, Rafa cannot be counted out as long as he is healthy. But we also saw what happened next: he was on top of the tennis world for a few weeks, but it did not take long for the next injury to crop up. And now it might even be hard for him to win another FO title. I still think that Novax has the best prospect of winning a few more slams for maybe two years – even if it doesn’t look like it right now. But he has the most resilient body of the Big Three. We will see…
But Alcaraz has the luxury of being so young that time is on his side. The Big Three have wrecked the careers of multiple very talented players, who could have been slam winners in a different aera, over almost 20 years! They left behind a wake of destruction š But if Alcaraz stays healthy and motivated, this will not happen to him. But comparing him with the Big Three or even the Big Four – Murray was far better than his puny slam title collection suggests – is far too early. Let’s revisit this discussion when Alcaraz has a couple of slam titles under his belt!
But when Alcaraz is ready I hope that he will have decent competition.