Alcaraz 2022 season v Nadal 2005 season

[jl809]

YE1 is a result (not to mention youngest ever YE1) and that has more value than any non slam tournament.

debates about competition are debates about peak levels, which is not relevant to results. no one adjusts slam records by difficulty, for example

true, but that’s not my point about the competition. Nadal won 4 M1000s and 11 titles, and Carlos is currently on 2 and 5. Yet Carlos sits at number 1 and Nadal finished at 2.

So the question to a casual is, why did Nadal win more big tournaments (and more matches overall) than Alcaraz, yet fail to finish year end number 1? The answer is competition - he had someone else in his year who was exceptional. It is literally only because of this that he finished 2nd. Alcaraz does not have that, his challengers have been far weaker, inconsistent or banned.

 

[mike danny]

true, but that’s not my point about the competition. Nadal won 4 M1000s and 11 titles, and Carlos is currently on 2 and 5. Yet Carlos sits at number 1 and Nadal finished at 2.

So the question to a causal is, why did Nadal win more big tournaments (and more matches overall) than Alcaraz, yet fail to finish year end number 1? The answer is competition - he had someone else in his year who was exceptional. It is literally only because of that which he finished 2nd. Alcaraz does not have that, his challengers have been far weaker, inconsistent or banned.

Good luck to Alcaraz finishing no.1 against a guy with an 81-4 record for the season.

 

[Mustard]

YEC is a must-win for Carlos if there's going to be a real debate.

Nadal wasn't able to play the event in 2005, nor Paris Indoors before it.

 

[GabeT]

true, but that’s not my point about the competition. Nadal won 4 M1000s and 11 titles, and Carlos is currently on 2 and 5. Yet Carlos sits at number 1 and Nadal finished at 2.

So the question to a casual is, why did Nadal win more big tournaments (and more matches overall) than Alcaraz, yet fail to finish year end number 1? The answer is competition - he had someone else in his year who was exceptional. It is literally only because of this that he finished 2nd. Alcaraz does not have that, his challengers have been far weaker, inconsistent or banned.

Again, this is a peak comparison which I think all agree leaves Nadal ahead. But that’s not what OP asked

 

[GabeT]

Did you miss all those "slams adjusted by difficulty" threads?

Utter waste of time

 

[Mustard]

Again, this is a peak comparison which I think all agree leaves Nadal ahead. But that’s not what OP asked

Even the raw numbers favour Nadal. 79-10 win-loss record and 11 tournaments won, including 1 major and 4 masters events.

 

[GabeT]

Even the raw numbers favour Nadal. 79-10 win-loss record and 11 tournaments won, including 4 masters events.

is there a single tennis pro in the history of the sport that wouldn‘t give up every non slam tournament won in exchange for a YE1 result?

we can debate how many slams a “youngest YE1 in history” is worth. But not how many masters or 500/250s

 

[Mustard]

is there a single tennis pro in the history of the sport that wouldn‘t give up every non slam tournament won in exchange for a YE1 result?

we can debate how many slams a “youngest YE1 in history” is worth. But not how many masters or 500/250s

Surely winning tournaments is better than what a computer says about you?

 

[GabeT]

Surely winning tournaments is better than what a computer says about you?

At this point I can no longer distinguish satire from serious posts

 

[Mustard]

At this point I can no longer distinguish satire from serious posts

Winning tournaments is something you do, with your own physical and mental actions.

 

[Turning Pro]

Fair post.

Although having said that, if carlos wins Yr end championship, I'd probably only just slightly put him ahead (Nadal) and possibly reconsider it altogether but it'll have to be how he wins it in a way.

 

[GabeT]

Winning tournaments is something you do, with your own physical and mental actions.

so Is reaching #1 in the world (not to mention youngest ever YE1) something pro players have repeatedly stated is one of the most important goals for them.

 

[Mustard]

so Is reaching #1 in the world (not to mention youngest ever YE1) something pro players have repeatedly stated is one of the most important goals for them.

The ranking system and computer tells you that.

 

[GabeT]

For some strange reason posters in a tennis forum have evolved to believe that reaching #1 in the world, the single most important objective of actual tennis pros as repeatedly stated by them, is not a particularly important result

 

[Mustard]

For some strange reason posters in a tennis forum have evolved to believe that reaching #1 in the world, the single most important objective of actual tennis pros as repeatedly stated by them, is not a particularly important result

Reaching number 1 is more important than winning majors? LOL.

 

[ChaelAZ]

It's different, but would say in terms of accomplishment is equal. Certainly not better or worse to me.

 

[GabeT]

Trolling is understandable but the crappy tennis analysis one reads here so much is another thing altogether

 

[GabeT]

Not majors, but masters for sure.

Which is why this whole debate is nonsense. Nadal winning more masters and a few 500/250 can never compensate for Alcaraz winning youngest ever YE1

 

[StrongRule]

11 titles in a single season is way more impressive than becoming number 1 in an asterisk era. Alcaraz isn't coming close to 11 titles. As I see, this ridiculous claim of Alcaraz being better than young Nadal is coming mostly from those who dislike Nadal. Nobody ever brought a convincing argument.

 

[Hitman]

Although having said that, if carlos wins Yr end championship, I'd probably only just slightly put him ahead (Nadal) and possibly reconsider it altogether but it'll have to be how he wins it in a way.

That's fine. I understand.

 

[DSH]

We can debate achievements. There is no point in debating subjective stuff like "level of play" or "competition level". We all know Federer played better in 2015 than Nadal' 2022.
Does anyone rates his slamless season above Nadal'? No. This is why having a slam and #1 spot seal the deal for Alcaraz...

No, we don't.
Federer from 2015 lost to Seppi in Australia (the Spanish player would have beaten the Italian without any problem) and Nadal from 2022 would have easily beaten that year's version of the Swiss player at Roland Garros.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Tiny Carl may be #1 but in all honesty it really doesn’t feel like he’s been the best player in the world this season. He’s just played a lot more than the next highest ranked guy.

This is basically like when Murray finished YE#1 in 2016. And I know a lot of Joker fans and ********* alike have huge gripes with how that turned out.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Gabe doing overtime with the mental gymnastics lol wow

 

[MeatTornado]

Nadal wasn't able to play the event in 2005, nor Paris Indoors before it.

He didn't win either of those events in the following decade & a half, so I'm pretty confident in 05 Nadal also not winning them. His participation doesn't change anything here.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Wait I thought Fed was Nadal's pigeon, even back in 2005.

 

[Slicehand]

Nadal still IMO. The US Open was far from a decisive victory. He could have lost to any number of players there. Never would have won it if Zverev/Djokovic played.. Since the US Open Alcaraz has looked pretty terrible too. Carlos aint winning the YEC. Indoors isn't his bag

He is good at indoors, only thing that stops him from being better indoors is the serve, but the rest of his game works ok, also, whos gonna take the YEC from him? Tsitsipas? Nadal? Nadal is in very bad shape and carlos is gonna win slme matches at turin too, and he can go very far in paris, of course he is finishing the year number 1, anyghing else would be the stranger thing

 

[Deleted member 779124]

If Carlos wins both Paris and YEC there is a case for him but not saying I would agree. But he needs to win both IMHO.

 

[Mustard]

He didn't win either of those events in the following decade & a half, so I'm pretty confident in 05 Nadal also not winning them. His participation doesn't change anything here.

He won his only indoor title in 2005, and won 11 titles that year, his highest to date in a calendar year. This was before the career threatening foot injury.

 

[Mustard]

Wait I thought Fed was Nadal's pigeon, even back in 2005.

They had only met 3 times by the end of 2005. 2-1 to Nadal, and Federer's win having saw him come back from 2 sets and a break down. 2006 was when it really heated up, when Nadal won their first 4 meetings that year in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome and the French Open, to go 6-1 up in the head-to-head. Federer didn't lose many matches at the time. Federer was 81-4 in 2005 and 92-5 in 2006. Nadal was responsible for 5 of those 9 Federer losses.

 

[MichaelNadal]

They had only met 3 times by the end of 2005. 2-1 to Nadal, and Federer's win having saw him come back from 2 sets and a break down. 2006 was when it really heated up, when Nadal won their first 4 meetings that year in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome and the French Open, to go 6-1 up in the head-to-head. Federer didn't lose many matches at the time. Federer was 81-4 in 2005 and 92-5 in 2006. Nadal was responsible for 5 of those 9 Federer losses.

Nadal is epic AF

 

[The_Order]

They had only met 3 times by the end of 2005. 2-1 to Nadal, and Federer's win having saw him come back from 2 sets and a break down. 2006 was when it really heated up, when Nadal won their first 4 meetings that year in Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome and the French Open, to go 6-1 up in the head-to-head. Federer didn't lose many matches at the time. Federer was 81-4 in 2005 and 92-5 in 2006. Nadal was responsible for 5 of those 9 Federer losses.

Not only was Fed down 2 sets to 0, but Nadal got screwed over with a bs line call as well... if Hawkeye system was in use, Nadal would have won that match also....

The ********* don't have a leg to stand on here... all they can do is keep saying "yeah but Carlos got #1.... Carlos got #1" lmao he got #1 and still everyone would take Nadal's 2022 over his...

If the year was 2005, Carlos doesn't win a slam or a Masters either... he couldn't even beat 36 yr old broken rib Nadal on hc...

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Nadal in terms of achievements for sure, he lacks YE1 only because of peak Federer.

Alcaraz was better on HC, Nadal better on clay and you can make a case for Alcaraz being better on grass. But overall it's still Nadal because he dominated clay and was also really good on HC.

 

[duaneeo]

I think 19 year old Alcaraz will end up overtaking 19 year old Nadal in achievements. But 2022 Alcaraz needs to be YE #1 and WTF champion to overtake 2005 Nadal in achievements.

 

[GabeT]

Lol, are posters here still pretending they understand better than pros what is important in tennis?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Lol, are posters here still pretending they understand better than pros what is important in tennis?

tell us pls what's important in tennis?

 

[GabeT]

tell us pls what's important in tennis?

You can subscribe to my newsletter. Very cheap

 

[Hitman]

tell us pls what's important in tennis?

What do you think, looking at it reading like this.

1 slam, 4 masters vs 1 slam, 2 masters, world number one, year ending number one

The first guy has won more titles in a single season, the second guy has achieved the 3 biggest milestones in tennis in a single season

 

[Incognito]

Yeah, it would be tough even for 2011/2015 Djokovic, let alone a teenage Nadal.

2011/2015 djoko would have been slamless in 2005.

 

[StrongRule]

What do you think, looking at it reading like this.

1 slam, 4 masters vs 1 slam, 2 masters, world number one, year ending number one

The first guy has won more titles in a single season, the second guy has achieved the 3 biggest milestones in tennis in a single season

You can't simply ignore winning 11 titles in a single season. 2022 is a year in which even Ruud was 1 match away from becoming world number 1.

 

[Hitman]

You can't simply ignore winning 11 titles in a single season. 2022 is a year in which even Ruud was 1 match away from becoming world number 1.

Yes, 11 titles, but really only five of them matter at the elite level. The slam, and the four masters titles.

The real question is, do two masters titles and a few small events overide youngest ever world number one and youngest ever year ending number one, both which would be records?

 

[Rosstour]

Same, a completely depleted field. While Nadal took out Peak Fed on his way to his maiden slam

Yeah but as Djok & Dal fans have been telling us for years...Federer wasn't really that good.

So, having him as your only competition is pretty weak, no?

 

[The_Order]

Yeah but as Djok & Dal fans have been telling us for years...Federer wasn't really that good.

So, having him as your only competition is pretty weak, no?

I don't think anyone has said Federer was not that good...

He was a big 3 at his peak without the other big 3 in his way apart from Nadal at RG.

 

[StrongRule]

Yes, 11 titles, but really only five of them matter at the elite level. The slam, and the four masters titles.

The real question is, do two masters titles and a few small events overide youngest ever world number one and youngest ever year ending number one, both which would be records?

Not all 500 titles were small. Some of them even had a BO5 final, like the masters. The fact that Nadal didn't become number 1 in 2005 despite winning 11 titles says how different the competition was back then compared to 2022.

Being number 1 doesn't even mean you are the best player in the world. Nobody took Wozniacki seriously in 2010-2011 when she got two YE#1 in a row. Everyone were just bashing her. Luckily, she got her slam win in AO 2018.

 

[Rosstour]

I don't think anyone has said Federer was not that good...

He was a big 3 at his peak without the other big 3 in his way apart from Nadal at RG.

Actually, a lot of people have said he wasn't that good.

Maybe not using those exact words, but putting down Fed is great sport on TTW.

What his detractors fail to realize is that if he really was that much worse than Nadal and Djok as they like to argue...then beating him really isn't that impressive. No?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

No, we don't.
Federer from 2015 lost to Seppi in Australia (the Spanish player would have beaten the Italian without any problem) and Nadal from 2022 would have easily beaten that year's version of the Swiss player at Roland Garros.

More like Nadal played better in first half & Roger in 2nd half of the year.
M1000s & 500s, Roger played better.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Tiny Carl may be #1 but in all honesty it really doesn’t feel like he’s been the best player in the world this season. He’s just played a lot more than the next highest ranked guy.

This is basically like when Murray finished YE#1 in 2016. And I know a lot of Joker fans and ********* alike have huge gripes with how that turned out.

Nadal is the real no.1 this season.
Its not even debatable man.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

What do you think, looking at it reading like this.

1 slam, 4 masters vs 1 slam, 2 masters, world number one, year ending number one

The first guy has won more titles in a single season, the second guy has achieved the 3 biggest milestones in tennis in a single season

nothing really changed, its like compare two guys who have pretty same numbers in their student days while competing in 100m dash, and lets make one dash between em and one guy will run with slippers and the other one is with sneakers, in the end guy with sneakers of course will win and history books will write him as the winner without looking at context (slippers vs sneakers) and then everybody will be thinking without looking at that crucial point, oh look we dont wanna take into consideration that moment and that guy really is better, plus add here the fact what a mess was going on this year, which you, btw, admitted before, then all this only worsens the situation regarding the legitimacy of this achievement in comparison with nadal' year (of course context can be different, i.e. strong or not strong, but in here, in our case it plays strong/crucial role thats why more like it can't be disregarded)

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal 2005 > Alcaraz 2022
But
Alcaraz's 2022 Season > Nadal's 2005 Season

Well said !

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

2011/2015 djoko would have been slamless in 2005.

2011 wins AO but nothing else
2015 wins nothing.

 

[Hitman]

Not all 500 titles were small. Some of them even had a BO5 final, like the masters. The fact that Nadal didn't become number 1 in 2005 despite winning 11 titles says how different the competition was back then compared to 2022.

Being number 1 doesn't even mean you are the best player in the world. Nobody took Wozniacki seriously in 2010-2011 when she got two YE#1 in a row. Everyone were just bashing her. Luckily, she got her slam win in AO 2018.

Well, they both won Barcelona, yes?

And its not Alcaraz' fault that they removed BO5 finals, in fact Nadal along with Federer and their Rome 2006 final is to be blamed for that. That doesn't devalue Alcaraz's wins in any way, he can only play within the rules.

Now, I personally feel Nadal was the better player of the two, no question, and he faced the tougher competition. But this is about achievements and you can only play who is in front of you.

I mean, a slam is still a slam right? We count them all, we don't half count any of them. For instance, Wimbledon 2008 is given the same value as USO 2017 for Nadal, each building his tally by one. That is why he has 22, the context is removed, it is the pure numbers that count.

As for Alcaraz, comparing him to Woz is a bit unfair, he actually won the USO this year, to capture the number one ranking, so totally different, he is a slam winner at 19 years old.