NatF
Bionic Poster
Because if he's can't handle more than 2 sets with Djokovic his chances of beating Fed are slim. He'd struggle with Delpo and pre final Soderling as well...
‘23 Alcaraz versus ‘09 Muzziah
- Thread starter TheFifthSet
- Start date
Because if he's can't handle more than 2 sets with Djokovic his chances of beating Fed are slim. He'd struggle with Delpo and pre final Soderling as well...
TheFifthSet
Legend
Yes, it’s kind of vague/“non-specific”, which is why my OP approached the question from various angles. Precisely because it’s a vague question.
Yes, there’s no definitive conclusion to this. We’re in lockstep here, which would’ve been clearer if you had cared to read ahead; “inconclusive” is literally the word I used to bookend the comparison in my OP.
Yes, many variables, it’s subjective, etc.
And yes, there will be “pointless wrangling” - that’s a feature of almost every thread in this sub-forum. We’re discussing tennis here, and all of this is ultimately just a form of escapism - which sometimes includes inane, pointless comparisons like this one.
Don’t let the door hit you and your superiority complex on the way out, thanks.
Last edited:
Underdog
Professional
He handled 5 against Novak at WB. RG was a fluke, imo. I believe he could keep up with the ‘09 field.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
How are they even? Alcaraz is a two time slam winner. Andy was just a best of three vulture who failed to deliver in slams
NatF
Bionic Poster
2009 Fed > 2023 Djokovic at every slam.
Underdog
Professional
I agree with that. Still, 2009 had some vulnerable moments, especially at RG - going 0x2 vs Haas, for instance. Alcaraz is probably a harder matchup than any of the players Fed faced. WB is a long stretch, of course, and Roddick himself played very well, but RG is within grasp.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Alcramp harder than peak Delpo? lul
Underdog
Professional
I’m obviously assuming Alcaraz wouldn’t cramp.
NatF
Bionic Poster
In the final couple of rounds Federer was very strong at RG. His serve in the final was crazy good. Don't think Alcaraz is going to be tougher than Delpo, especially considering he couldn't deal with the expectations.
Old is gold.
Underdog
Professional
I get your point, fair enough. I don’t think Alcaraz is below peak Delpo on the RG clay. Thus, I believe he could be a title contender, even if it meant going through Roger in the final. I’m not accounting for mental issues here, of course. I’m sticking to the primary point of the OP which is level of play.
In my eyes, Carlos definitely has game to contend in that 2009 RG.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Delpo was playing really well there, don't think Alcaraz has shown that level at RG yet but ok.
taster
Rookie
Saying that something is inconclusive is different from saying that something is incoherent. Whether there is a Planet Nine in the outer reaches of the solar system is inconclusive given the limited data we have, but that doesn't mean that the proposition that it does exist is incoherent, because it could - in principle, be verified if we had enough information.Yes, it’s kind of vague/“non-specific”, which is why my OP approached the question from various angles. Precisely because it’s a vague question.
Yes, there’s no definitive conclusion to this. We’re in lockstep here, which would’ve been clearer if you had cared to read ahead; “inconclusive” is literally the word I used to bookend the comparison in my OP.
Yes, many variables, it’s subjective, etc.
And yes, there will be “pointless wrangling” - that’s a feature of almost every thread in this sub-forum. We’re discussing tennis here, and all of this is ultimately just a form of escapism - which sometimes includes inane, pointless comparisons like this one.
Don’t let the door hit you and your superiority complex on the way out, thanks.
There isn't a proposition in your OP, in fact it isn't even vague, as you suggest, because that implies some clarification might make it coherent - it won't.
It's not that the variables are subjective - facts are facts, it's the impossibility is ascribing weight to each of them, as if one thing can trump another in some notionally agree way.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Where do I argue otherwise? In that specific sentence, I was directly expressing agreement with you claiming that there can be no definitive conclusion. No more no less, and given its own sentence to avoid conflation on your end.
Which is blessedly irrelevant to anything I’ve said here, but do continue spouting truisms.
Firstly, ‘nonspecific’ (the word you used) and ‘vague’ (my paraphrase) are synonyms.
Secondly, fair enough; it’s incoherent. We’re a group of people making valuations on the internet, on topics that are incoherent or, at the very least, utterly subjective/unprovable/nebulous.
And?
These are fun pastimes, not academic or philosophical discussions. Seeing as everyone else appears to understand the spirit of the thread and can respond without feigning confusion, you might need to — what’s the expression — touch grass, perhaps?
I never said that the variables are subjective — probably pedantic of me to point out, but given who I’m talking to…
Mm, might want to proofread that Bertrand.
In any event, I actually agree with your broader point about the limitations of these discussions. It’s just rare to run into people that feel compelled to explain them. But a cursory look at your posts here suggest it won’t be the last time.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
We can only go by what we've seen. And we've seen Alcaraz cramp after 2 sets against a 36 year old Djokovic. This Alcaraz is not beating Fed.
Underdog
Professional
I’m not saying it’s a given, I’m saying he went into RG this year with level and expectancy that, imo, are enough to content in 2009, specifically at RG. Alcaraz is still far from peak Roger.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, but we can't give him a hypothetical win when he cramped in real life.
Underdog
Professional
I’m not saying he’d be a given. I only said I’d bet on him. He could very well lose even before the final.
Emphatically disagree about Wimbledon. Alcaraz is clearly superior. Murray navigated a potentially tricky first two matches (big-serving Kendrick and Gulbis) and bested an in-form Wawrinka (but on grass, by far his weakest surface, and well before he became the Stanimal), but then lost to Roddick in the semis. Alcaraz by contrast, after navigating a tricky match against Stuff, pretty much manhandled Berrettini, Rune, and Med in succession before outlasting Djokovic in the final. I'm sorry, but how are those remotely comparable performances?
23 Alcaraz was better than 09 Murray at all three slams that he played.
(Pretty much agreed with the rest of it, though. Murray's decisively better at Miami and Canada. I'd give Alcaraz the edge at Cincy since he beat better players and was even on the cusp of beating Novak in the final, though of course his actual level was all over the place. Indian Wells actually looks like it could be close. I don't remember the Federer semifinal off the top of my head, but on paper he's a tougher opponent than anyone Alcaraz faced, and then as a reward for winning that match Murray got Nadal in in the middle of one of his best runs of form...)
Last edited:
dking68
G.O.A.T.
Because he was just peaking at best of threes. It’s like asking how did Ruud becoming number 2 sooner than Tsitsipas even though we both know Tsitsipas is the better player
President
Legend
Murray is/was a better and more talented player than Sinner is or likely ever will be. He peaked in a much tougher era.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
It's no laughing matter. Murray is much better player than Sinner at same age. They are not even in same ballpark. And if Murray retired with just 3 slams, what would that say about Sinner?
dking68
G.O.A.T.
How many slams though? If Sinner wins a slam next year which is highly likely and if he wins the ATP finals this year, 09 Murray doesn’t even get near Sinner’s boots
dking68
G.O.A.T.
Oh was he ? Let’s compare Sinner 2024 to Murray 2010 in a year from now then, I’ll be happy to compare both
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
You are not GOD. You are nobody. Talk about present and don't pretend to talk about future.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
Let’s see friend. Sinner has a much better forehand and backhand and is not a pusher. Aggression wins slams. I’m sure he’ll have a vastly better career than Hipray. Hipray needed 25.5 years to win a slam and 29 years to reach number one. That won’t happen for Sinner
dking68
G.O.A.T.
You want to bet Sinner wins a slam next year? Then this Murray discussion ends
ghostofMecir
Legend
There’s a 0.0% chance that Jannik sinner is going to have a 90% plus win rate next year.
There’s like a <10% chance Sinner has a better career than Murray has had.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
This is much better than Anything Sinner ever did.
In your heart you know it. Sinner is not even as good as Murray, yet.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
He didn’t win the event nor did he make the final. If Sinner wins Turin, that’s one checkbox Murray didn’t tick until he was 29
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Neither would Sinner. The variety Murray showed even at that age is more than Sinner ever showed.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
Did you watch the Medvedev match in China? That had way more variety and strategic planning. Murray just pushed until Federer let out an UE
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Yes. It was very impressive. But not as good as this one.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
Well something big is happening for Sinner in Turin. It’s a make or break moment for him. I think he wins the title and has a strong 2024 season
dking68
G.O.A.T.
@nachiket nolefam Reason why it’s a make/break situation for Sinner
Make: Make him believe he can win big titles beating the best in the world including Djokovic, giving him belief he can win slams
Break - losing in front of Djokovic at home, would be truly heartbreaking. I’m sure he won’t go down without a fight. The break is that he won’t win a slam next year
Make: Make him believe he can win big titles beating the best in the world including Djokovic, giving him belief he can win slams
Break - losing in front of Djokovic at home, would be truly heartbreaking. I’m sure he won’t go down without a fight. The break is that he won’t win a slam next year
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Murray's win/loss % in 2009 was a wopping 86%! His second best after 2016, yet he didn't even make a slam final, let alone win one... just shows the strength of the field back then. 2009 Murray would wreak havoc in this era.
dking68
G.O.A.T.
He played a lot of Davis cup matches and there were a few walkovers
InsideOut900
Legend
He lost to Roddick in a tight and high quality match.
That Murray was probably at the same level to 2016 Murray, who won the title, I don't see how Rune, Med would be less than total W/O for him and he would outlast a 36 years old Novak for sure, so I think Raz only gets credit for winning the trophy, not his actual level in relation to Murray.
And serously now, a 26 years old Roddick who could hang with a strong prime Federer with strong serving and improved BH, this guy doesn't get any respect here, he could totally routine Raz who has never faced anyone like that in 2022-2023.
Last edited:
Should have watched Raz play mate. Who knows he could have crushed Roddick in 4 with the kind of returning he was doing that fortnight.
And yes he gets credit for ... winning. Obviously. Plus the level. Those twelve matches this year on grass were something else to witness the grass rookie level up in such manner. Spectacular stuff. Check them out when you can.
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Please fight more
InsideOut900
Legend
I watched every single one of his last 4 matches in Wimbledon. He played above himself and righfully deserved the title. But there are a miriad of players who would beat an average playing 36 years old Djoko on grass in less than 5 sets and not having to play the result to 1-2 clutch/choke points.
How on earth would you expect him to crush Roddick in 4? The guy is about twice the server as someone like Berrettini and Medvedev on grass, a more natural mover and an adapted baseline game for the surface.
2009 Fed nearly lost to him, but somehow a 20 years old Raz is the better than the grass GOAT in his prime still playing at like 85-90% of his absolute best
I you say I didn't watch Alcaraz, you surely haven't watched those 2009 matches.
Tennfan123
Legend
lol
Nah I obviously did. It's not a match from 1967 for me to not have watched it. But you not having watched more than 4 matches of Alcaraz in total is my sneaking suspicion. But anyway, I hope you understand that your perception of level from 15 years ago may not necessarily be the same perception of others of the same.I watched every single one of his last 4 matches in Wimbledon. He played above himself and righfully deserved the title. But there are a miriad of players who would beat an average playing 36 years old Djoko on grass in less than 5 sets and not having to play the result to 1-2 clutch/choke points.
How on earth would you expect him to crush Roddick in 4? The guy is about twice the server as someone like Berrettini and Medvedev on grass, a more natural mover and an adapted baseline game for the surface.
2009 Fed nearly lost to him, but somehow a 20 years old Raz is the better than the grass GOAT in his prime still playing at like 85-90% of his absolute best
I you say I didn't watch Alcaraz, you surely haven't watched those 2009 matches.
Also yeah with hypotheticals. Just because he took a pretty questionable Federer to 5 sets shouldn't mean that he will automatically straight-set Alcaraz. Hypothetically, anything can happen including the same hypothetical Federer from that match returning as well as he theoretically should against the same Roddick of the same hypothetical match.
InsideOut900
Legend
I never said people should agree with me, just to try and analyze what I am saying and why I am saying it. Basically just give the effort that I am putting into some of these posts back.
I never said he would straight set Alcaraz. Just that it should be clearly in Roddick's favor at least based on signs.
Lol, it's actually funny to call 2009 Fed questionable, but not talk about how Novak played this year. Alcaraz nearly lost to a questionable mid 30s Djoko, being dominated in sets 1 and 4. Roddick only lost his serve once the entire match and broke Fed twice.
I mean considering even a 38 years old Fed went toe to toe with Novak, how on earth is a well playing 27 years old Fed questionable. We are not talking close margin and up to interpretation, we are talking about a landslide difference.
Anything can happen, but some of the things are strongly supported by empirical evidence, which means understanding the level of serving, moving and baselining in either of those two matches and how those styles of play would reflect on the surface. Fed's returning performance wasn't the best, but comparing Novak on a mediocre serving day to Roddick, one of the top 10/15 servers of all times on a good day, it's pointless. Alcaraz wouldn't see half of those serves back or past the serve line.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
