Alcaraz v Nadal at age 20, who is now more accomplished?

[Hitman]

Not who played the higher level of tennis, or who had what competition, but who's career is more accomplished at the same age

Personally, I am going with Alcaraz.

US Open Champion
Wimbledon Champion
Youngest World Number One
Youngest Year Ending Number One
Indian Wells Champion
Miami Champion
Madrid Champion x 2
6-0 in big finals


In comparison to Nadal

French Open Champion x 2
Monte Carlo Champion x 2
Rome Champion x 2
Montreal Champion
Madrid Indoors Champion

Alcaraz has become multi surface grand slam champion at age 20, the first since Wilander back in 1983, exactly 40 years ago. Clearly the world number one player, and with big titles on all three surfaces, Nadal, 2 slams, but only at one place, more masters, but a very clay centric resume.

 

[Soul_of_Slicehand]

come on man, he will never amount to anything with that return of serve

 

[mike danny]

Carlos more accomplished, but Nadal had tougher competition. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jonas78]

Its tough to answer without considering competition. Facing Federer on grass in 06 was a tough task. Anyway - being so adaptive to all surfaces almost as a teenager is extremely impressive.

 

[Kralingen]

Carlos has a legitimate chance to go down as the most accomplished player in the history of the game.

Lot of runway left. But the path is there now. It is open.

 

[duaneeo]

I still say Nadal holds the edge. Madrid was a BO5 final, as were his clay Masters finals. The 2005 and 2006 Rome finals were better than most slam finals. At Wimbledon, 20 year old Nadal lost the title to 24 year old peak Federer.

But Alcaraz still has many more months as a 20 year old, and I think will surpass the 20 year old Nadal.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

You can't talk about accomplishments since opposition plays a role in that.. Nadal would be sleepwalking through RG/Wimbledon and every damn grass and clay tournament at 20-21 years old today.. And heck maybe even a HC slam who knows

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

It's difficult to have a fair comparison since Alcaraz might have developed quicker if the Covid Hiatus never happened. All things considered at 20 years and 2 months it's pretty close with Nadal being more dominant in Clay and making 1 Wimbledon Final while Alcaraz already winning multiple titles in 3 surfaces.

 

[Hitman]

Its tough to answer without considering competition. Facing Federer on grass in 06 was a tough task. Anyway - being so adaptive to all surfaces almost as a teenager is extremely impressive.

Well, who's trophy cabinet do you want if you were looking at them side by side and you get the trophies?

A slam is worth a slam in the history books.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

I dont think Carlos is beating 24-26 year old Fed at Wimbledon

 

[messiahrobins]

Alcaraz for me. But for unfortunate cramping at RG he probably would be now holder of 3 slams on 3 surfaces. As it is he has won 2 slams on 2 surfaces. Nadal couldnt do that so have to give this alcaraz.

 

[Hitman]

I dont think Carlos is beating 24-26 year old Fed at Wimbledon

It's not about competition or who had the higher level of play.

The question is about who you think is more accomplished, and that means, titles or big achievements like being world number one. You cannot pick your competition.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

It's not about competition or who had the higher level of play.

The question is about who you think is more accomplished, and that means, titles or big achievements like being world number one. You cannot pick your competition.

Carlos probably,... That means nothing since his only competition is OLDovic right now. How about the weight of titles? Nadal's less is actually more cause the competition was much fiercer back then with peak GOAT's as opposition. Not old past prime GOATs

 

[mike danny]

If we start ignoring competition, we might as well just say Thomas Johansson > Murray at the AO.

 

[Jonas78]

Well, who's trophy cabinet do you want if you were looking at them side by side and you get the trophies?

A slam is worth a slam in the history books.

Alcaraz, no doubt

 

[TheNachoMan]

HC; slight edge to Carlos
Grass: slight edge to Carlos
Clay: very clearly RAFA

 

[The_Order]

Carlos more accomplished, but Nadal had tougher competition. It's as simple as that.

Any thread celebrating accomplishments whilst wishing to throw away the fact that competition plays the most significant part to said accomplishments is a fail.

 

[Hitman]

Carlos probably,... That means nothing since his only competition is OLDovic right now. How about the weight of titles? Nadal's less is actually more cause the competition was much fiercer back then with peak GOAT's as opposition

You are looking at two trophy cabinets side by side, one cabinet holds a Wimbledon title, a USO title, year ending title, a couple of masters titles, the other trophy cabinet has two French Opens, and six masters titles. That is what you see, so which do you want to own? Everything else is subjective.

 

[messiahrobins]

Carlos probably,... That means nothing since his only competition is OLDovic right now. How about the weight of titles? Nadal's less is actually more cause the competition was much fiercer back then with peak GOAT's as opposition

Then using this argument Nadal was the greatest of his era as all of his slams came with federer and/djokovic about.
Alcaraz today would have beat Rafa 2006. Just a more complete player pound for pound. Got to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

You are looking at two trophy cabinets side by side, one cabinet holds a Wimbledon title, a USO title, year ending title, a couple of masters titles, the trophy cabinet has two French Opens, and six masters titles. That is what you see, so which do you want to own? Everything else is subjective.

Picking up breadcrumbs wouldn't make me satisfied. For instance are you more impressed what Djokovic accomplished vs. Nadal/Fed or what he has done against this worthless generation of nothings? Djoker gets critized by vulturing slams since 2018 . The same guys Carlos is vulturing now

 

[The_Order]

Djok fan wishing to celebrate numbers without factoring competition... what else is new?

 

[Hitman]

Then using this argument Nadal was the greatest of his era as all of his slams came with federer and/djokovic about.
Alcaraz today would have beat Rafa 2006. Just a more complete player pound for pound. Got to give credit where credit is due.

We can talk competition and level of play all day long, and I personally feel Nadal's level was the highest of any of the big 3 and CA at 20, but it's just titles we are looking at.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Still RAFA for me. He faced much tougher competition. Heck, he would have been a 3x Wimby champion had it not been for peak/prime Fed. He has more big titles to his name (8 vs 6) and more titles total still (17 vs 12).

Tiny Carl has been YE#1 yes, but that was mostly down to Oldal being injured for a huge chunk of last year and Joker being banned for his choices.

 

[Roddickulous1]

Accolades are directly influenced by competition so its kinda pointless looking at them in a vacuum.

 

[Hitman]

Picking up breadcrumbs wouldn't make me satisfied. For instance are you more impressed what Djokovic accomplished vs. Nadal/Fed or what he has done against this worthless generation of nothings? Djoker gets critized by vulturing slams since 2018 . The same guys Carlos is vulturing now

History doesn't care though. Can you tell me the level of competition for the 1920 Wimbledon title and how it was different to the 1970 one? You cannot compare eras, CA cannot pick his competition, he can only play who is front of him.

Now, if you want Nadal's cabinet, that's fine, but all history will see is you as a two time RG champion, not a Wimbledon & USO champion.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Well, who's trophy cabinet do you want if you were looking at them side by side and you get the trophies?

A slam is worth a slam in the history books.

Trophy cabinet you’re obviously going to go with Alcaraz. Nothing tops Wimbledon. Two different slams is also superior. There’s no doubt he’s the more complete player at that age. Nadal is the ultimate surface specialist though. A true freak.

 

[Hitman]

OK will make a poll that just want to vote.

 

[Rago]

Considering the fact that Alcaraz has reached SF or further at slams on 3 different surfaces, I'd probably be inclined to pick him as the more well rounded player. Definitely more accomplished based on the numbers.

Nadal has a far more sizable advantage though on clay and grass combined compared to Alcaraz on HC.

 

[Hitman]

Considering the fact that Alcaraz has reached SF or further at slams on 3 different surfaces, I'd probably be inclined to pick him as the more well rounded player. Definitely more accomplished based on the numbers.

Nadal has a more sizable advantage though on clay and grass combined compared to Alcaraz on HC.

Nadal had zero titles on grass at 20. Alcaraz just picked up Queens and Wimbledon. Not sure how you think Nadal has a sizeable advantage on grass over a guy who just went 12-0 on it.

 

[duaneeo]

The question is about who you think is more accomplished, and that means, titles or big achievements like being world number one. You cannot pick your competition.

20 year old Nadal had made 20 finals (winning 17 titles) at this time...with a 5-setter loss at Miami to Federer (Rafa would've won if it were BO3), and two BO5 finals won at Barcelona.

 

[Rago]

Nadal had zero titles on grass at 20. Alcaraz just picked up Queens and Wimbledon. Not sure how you think Nadal has a sizeable advantage on grass over a guy who just went 12-0 on it.

Ah, that part of my post was based off the competition.

I combined clay and grass into one bucket though.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I still say Nadal holds the edge. Madrid was a BO5 final, as were his clay Masters finals. The 2005 and 2006 Rome finals were better than most slam finals. At Wimbledon, 20 year old Nadal lost the title to 24 year old peak Federer.

But Alcaraz still has many more months as a 20 year old, and I think will surpass the 20 year old Nadal.

Slay bestie

 

[Hitman]

20 year old Nadal had made 20 finals (winning 17 titles) at this time...with a 5-setter loss at Miami to Federer (Rafa would've won if it were BO3), and two BO5 finals won at Barcelona.

The big titles matter the most, not the smaller ones. Even Alcaraz has two Barcelona titles at the same age, and would have won them if they were best of five also.

 

[Hitman]

Ah, that part of my post was based off the competition.

I combined clay and grass into one bucket though.

Question is not about competition, just simply what you have accomplished and added to your trophy cabinet.

 

[Rago]

Question is not about competition, just simply what you have accomplished and added to your trophy cabinet.

I'm taking Alcaraz's cabinet at the moment. Guy can play almost anywhere.

 

[Hitman]

I'm taking Alcaraz's cabinet at the moment. Guy can play almost anywhere.

I think the USO title + Wimbledon title, plus that year end number one trophy is too much now. He is a slam champion at two different events.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Not considering competition well then it looks like Carlos. But that's like asking what number is bigger 9 or 8.

 

[duaneeo]

The big titles matter the most, not the smaller ones. Even Alcaraz has two Barcelona titles at the same age, and would have won them if they were best of five also.

Yes, but with neither player having much of an edge in slam titles, the smaller ones come more into play as to who is more accomplished. And yes, Alcaraz likely would've won his smaller titles if they were BO5 finals. But the point is that 20 year old Nadal won more overall titles, and had to play more pressured-filled BO5 finals to do so.

 

[Hitman]

Yes, but with neither player having much of an edge in slam titles, the smaller ones come more into play as to who is more accomplished. And yes, Alcaraz likely would've won his smaller titles if they were BO5 finals. But the point is that 20 year old Nadal won more overall titles, and had to play more pressured-filled BO5 finals to do so.

Alcaraz has year ending number one trophy, that is a big title, just ask Sampras and Connors.

The pressure filled masters finals....Do you think Medvedev stood any chance to win three sets against Alcaraz in IW, or Ruud had in Miami? If those were Best of five, he would have very likely still won them very convincingly. And he crushed Zverev in Madrid final last year, and that after beating Djokodal back to back, so not sure about your Nadal played more best of five finals things...CA wasn't allowed to play them.

 

[SonnyT]

Nadal didn't win his 1st non-clay slam til 2 years later.

Djokovic wanted to say that the Big 3 each had strengths and weaknesses, at any age. Djokovic looked for Alcaraz' weaknesses, and couldn't exploit any.

 

[Rago]

I think the USO title + Wimbledon title, plus that year end number one trophy is too much now. He is a slam champion at two different events.

Level wise, obviously I'm picking Nadal overall but I'd rather have Alcaraz's cabinet and statistical accomplishments. DUH.

This is all assuming that like you said, we just have the two cabinets side by side.

 

[Hitman]

Nadal didn't win his 1st non-clay slam til 2 years later.

Djokovic wanted to say that the Big 3 each had strengths and weaknesses, at any age. Djokovic looked for Alcaraz' weaknesses, and couldn't exploit any.

Alcaraz has a much more complete game than all of them did at the same age that is for sure, that plays a big reason into why he has won so much at such a young age.

 

[tudwell]

Hmm. Nadal had two slams, a slam runner-up, and six Masters. Alcaraz has two slams and four Masters. Best other slam finish is a semifinal (though you give Carlos Baghdatis in the semi instead of Djokovic and, well…).

Kinda comes down to whether you value Nadal’s already ombelleeble domination of clay or Alcaraz’s greater surface versatility more. Nadal ahead in sheer Big Title count.

 

[Clay lover]

Carlos definitely the better all-around champion but youngdal also had a crazy clay aura going on, breaking Vilas' clay win streak BEFORE he even turned 20 and sustaining that till the next year before his defeat at Hamburg, before he turned 21. Carlos would definitely add to his tally before he turns 21 and will definitely unanimously become the better 20 year-old achievements-wise, but Nadal deserves massive props for what he did on clay before and at that age.

 

[Lozo1016]

There's a large gap between Nadal winning 2006 RG and winning 2007 IW where he didn't win anything. Alcaraz has Canada, Cincinnati, U.S. Open, Shanghai, Paris, ATP Finals, and the Australian Open where he can potentially add to his resume along with more weeks at #1. If it isn't Alcaraz right now, it could be Alcaraz by the time the Aussie Open ends.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

I think what matters most is your trophy case and accomplishments when you end. Tracy Austin was a teenage phenom and suffered injury setbacks then years later a car accident that pretty much ended things. She is still a 2-time slam winner but people expected her to have accomplishments closer to players like Billie Jean King, Evert, and Martina.

Monica Seles won 8 slams as a teenager only to get stabbed and have her dad get cancer without fully recovering from the trauma. Sampras and Djokovic both needed 3 years to wins a second slam after winning the first with their overall accomplishments exceeding players that did more at a younger age.

Alcaraz at this point has moved far ahead from his contemporaries (young gen 20-23) but injuries, tragedies, or unforeseeable events can cut short his projected ATG status.

 

[-NN-]

If we're just talking about how the ledger looks at 20 years + change then probably Alcaraz because of the world #1 accolades, which perhaps trumps Nadal's edge in "Big" (Full Field) finals reached and won and bigger overall title haul (17- 12). With context, it's a lot more difficult for me to judge and it's really close, with a peak Federer playing heavy schedules and dominating the tour during Nadal's meteoric rise, denying him the #1 spot. As has been stated though, there's a big window where Alcaraz will probably gain in the age-to-age comp, highlighting Nadal's sometimes extreme claycentrism. Alcaraz is a threat everywhere and to all players, and will be consistently barring injury... already, at barely 20.

But I can't really look at this without thinking about level of play and such, and even though Nadal's on a single surface was probably still higher, I'm drawn to the greater completeness of Alcaraz's game and that he is a sure-fire threat in all conditions.

 

[kishnabe]

Carlos more accomplished, but Nadal had tougher competition. It's as simple as that.

Peak Federer over Grandpa Djokovic.

 

[T007]

I still say Nadal holds the edge. Madrid was a BO5 final, as were his clay Masters finals. The 2005 and 2006 Rome finals were better than most slam finals. At Wimbledon, 20 year old Nadal lost the title to 24 year old peak Federer.

But Alcaraz still has many more months as a 20 year old, and I think will surpass the 20 year old Nadal.

Federer was 25 I believe

 

[ADuck]

Accomplishments: Roughly equal, but edge Carlos

Grass: Slightly Nadal
Clay: Easily Nadal
Hard: Alcaraz

Overall: Nadal