Alcaraz 22 years old vs the big 4 at their pet slams

Who would win?

  • Djoko in AO

  • Alcaraz in AO

  • Nadal in RG

  • Alcaraz in RG

  • Federer in WB

  • Alcaraz in WB

  • Sampras in USO

  • Alcaraz in USO

Results are only viewable after voting.
Well all I know is who he isn't beating :whistle::whistle::whistle:

ed309f75862a9e7dc778d456b33b577fb5e3e05c.gifv
 
Sampras (at the USO the way it was when he was 22) and Nadal would destroy him. Federer would almost certainly beat him. Djokovic at 22 was a hot mess, so that might be up in the air, but then Alcaraz hasn't exactly set it on fire down under either.
 
I think if Djokovic wasn't injured at the AO, Alcaraz would have won the that match !!
Djokovic hit HUGE returns in the 2nd Set onwards, to avoid playing long rallies... and that's why Djokovic won, he went for broke.
Whereas in the 1st Set they were playing the usual rallies, and Alcaraz won it (y)
So the injury made Djokovic into an aggressive returner, and that changed the match-up completely...
And Alcaraz didn't attack enough, because he thought just extending the rallies would be enough to exploit Djokovic's injury.

TennisGrandpA said:
Doubt Pete would do it on modern courts
Click to expand...
Sampras would have in incredible backhand with modern racquets (y) because when his backhand was in-form it was a HUGE weapon and completely destroyed Agassi at 1999 Wimbledon :whistle:
If current racquets reduce the errors, that backhand would be in-form a lot more... and Sampras wouldn't even need to come to net.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TennisGrandpA said:
Doubt Pete would do it on modern courts
Click to expand...

Pete will do it on any court. Grass is Grass, he destroys everyone.

As far as HCs go, if Agassi troubled Federer in his best ever US Open tournament (2004) then Pete can too and he can trouble Djokodal too.

Clay is Clay, Pete would struggle, nothing new.
 
ALCARAZnoMERCY said:
I think if Djokovic wasn't injured at the AO, Alcaraz would have won the that match !!
Djokovic hit HUGE returns in the 2nd Set onwards, to avoid playing long rallies... and that's why Djokovic won, he went for broke.
Whereas in the 1st Set they were playing the usual rallies, and Alcaraz won it (y)
So the injury made Djokovic into an aggressive returner, and that changed the match-up completely...
And Alcaraz didn't attack enough, because he thought just extending the rallies would be enough to exploit Djokovic's injury.


Sampras would have in incredible backhand with modern racquets (y) because when his backhand was in-form it was a HUGE weapon and completely destroyed Agassi at 1999 Wimbledon :whistle:
If current racquets reduce the errors, that backhand would be in-form a lot more... and Sampras wouldn't even need to come to net.
Click to expand...
How are wedding plans progressing?

MichaelNadal said:
Carlos should be embarrassed tbh
Click to expand...
Nah, there's no shame in losing to Djokomeister.
 
Carlos would not beat any of them. Fed/Djoker were still amazing at 22. Maybe Carlos gives them a push, but I dont see that level.
 
He doesn’t beat any of them, and that’s no slight on him. Those guys had pet schlems for a reason. Right now I’d describe Carl as a jack of all trades master of none. Very well rounded, but every schlem he’s won thus far he’s been pushed to the brink in at least one 5 setter.
 
In best of 10 series, raz can beat everyone of them. In short 1 match , yes raz peak is yet to shine as high as either.

But doesn't matter. He won't be taking L constantly giving back as much as he gets. And he is still improving.
 
octobrina10 said:
Me, too:
french-open-roland-garros-2008-day-thirteen.jpg

Pictured 3 days after turning 22.
...
Click to expand...

Bull looks truly magnificent in this pic, like a bonafide athlete or a fighter.

No part in his body is too muscular or less muscular than what it should be, his body fat also seems appropriate. It looks like he could play other sports too and he would not look out of place in any sport he played.
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
Pete will do it on any court. Grass is Grass, he destroys everyone.

As far as HCs go, if Agassi troubled Federer in his best ever US Open tournament (2004) then Pete can too and he can trouble Djokodal too.

Clay is Clay, Pete would struggle, nothing new.
Click to expand...

Pete with that Bh and SNV not gonna do it.

Agassi had the baseline game to go toe to toe with Fed. When light baseliner of baseline evolution era (2000-2004) could own Pete then what Chances he had against modern players? Pete was best in his condition and thinking any player would be same in all eras is just plain delusion.
 
TennisGrandpA said:
Pete with that Bh and SNV not gonna do it.

Agassi had the baseline game to go toe to toe with Fed. When light baseliner of baseline evolution era (2000-2004) could own Pete then what Chances he had against modern players? Pete was best in his condition and thinking any player would be same in all eras is just plain delusion.
Click to expand...

100 years ago my Great Grandfather walked 10Kms to School and walked back 10 Kms to home. In my era I drove a motorbike.

Saying Pete will have the same backhand and SNV today is as ridiculous as saying my Great Grandfather would still be walking 20Kms in my era if he were of this era, or saying that I would not have gone to school if I was born 100 years ago because I cannot walk 20 Kms daily, no ???

Pete's backhand would actually be as good as Federer's or even better because first of all he had a 2 handed backhand while growing up, in this era he would not be so confused to change his backhand to a 1 hander at age 14 if he was born in 1987 with Djokovic. Pete would have ruled Tennis, there is no doubt about it, he was a better athlete than either of Federer or Djokovic based on how his high he used to jump during his slam dunks, similar to Monfils.
 
Razer said:
100 years ago my Great Grandfather walked 10Kms to School and walked back 10 Kms to home. In my era I drove a motorbike.

Saying Pete will have the same backhand and SNV today is as ridiculous as saying my Great Grandfather would still be walking 20Kms in my era if he were of this era, or saying that I would not have gone to school if I was born 100 years ago because I cannot walk 20 Kms daily, no ???

Pete's backhand would actually be as good as Federer's or even better because first of all he had a 2 handed backhand while growing up, in this era he would not be so confused to change his backhand to a 1 hander at age 14 if he was born in 1987 with Djokovic. Pete would have ruled Tennis, there is no doubt about it, he was a better athlete than either of Federer or Djokovic based on how his high he used to jump during his slam dunks, similar to Monfils.
Click to expand...

Pete won’t be the same player if he retool his game for baseline era and come up with a brand new Bh. You’re saying as if someone decided to improve his BH or FH or even serve to elite level it would be easy peasy. If it was that easy players with weak FH or BH or serve could develop it with ease lol. Anyway , your argument completely deals with hypothetical scenario where Pete abandon his play style to become an entirely different player. Pete owns 90s and his play style become obsolete thanks to poly and slower courts , that’s the only verifiable data we have at our disposable.
 
NoleFam said:
Didn't you open a thread saying that you watched the match and how impressed you were by Djokovic's level, and that he won it instead of Alcaraz losing it? Now it's that Alcaraz should be ashamed? Lol.
Click to expand...
That was before Borevac lost 70 matches in a row.
 
So basically Alcaraz today vs

Djokovic 2010 at the Australian Open
Nadal 2008 at Roland Garros
Federer 2004 at Wimbledon
Sampras 1993 at the US Open

Djokovic is the only one he might beat, largely because Djokovic was pretty mediocre for most of 2010. 20 year old Djokovic (2008) would carve Alcaraz up though

No chance of beating the other 3. The Nadal and Sampras matches would probably be the most one sided but he's not winning more than a set in any of them
 
Nappa said:
I mean Alcaraz 22 years old vs

Djokovic 22 years old in AO

Nadal 22 years old in RG

Federer 22 years old in WB

Sampras 22 years old in USO
Click to expand...
I would say that 22 years old is a bad question because 22 year old Nadal was near his prime while 22 year old Novak was not that great yet so that affects it too much. I’m gonna answer 25 years old vs 22 years old instead:

I would say the most likely would be Raz beating Federer at Wimbledon because Roger is less of a specialist at this slam than all the other options and Wimbledon has been Alcatraz’s best slam in recent years. I would give Alcaraz maybe a 40% chance of winning here. I’d actually give Roger a better chance of winning at both hc slams over Wimbledon

Second most likely would probably be Nadal at RG. This may sound weird, but RG is a good slam for Alcaraz and his game when on is devastating and could trouble Rafa. I’d say Alcaraz has about a 30% chance of winning.

Third most likely for Alcaraz to beat would be Djokovic in my opinion. This may also sound weird as the Australian is the only major Alcaraz hasn't won and it is basically Djokovic's house, but let me explain before you make any arguments. First of all, 25 year old Djokovic didn't have as good a serve as current Djokovic does as that is his main improvement, and definitely not a serve or volley game like Sampras. Alcaraz prefers to play people who are less agressive, and has had trouble with serve-volleyers and people who mix it up well. Just look at how he dropped a set against Purcell in their only encounter despite him being lowly ranked, his big-time struggles with Struff and Botic (Not serve-volleyer but yes a big server) he would not struggle as much with Djokovic's game as he would with Sampras's. I'd give him about 25% chance of winning.

Now Sampras. Sure Alcaraz won the U.S., but it was against poor opponents. Nothing like Sampras. Assuming they both had the same type of racket and string, especially if it is metal, I would give Sampras the win in three close sets. Unlike Agassi, Alcaraz does not take the return early enough to greatly trouble Pete’s serve. About a 20% chance for Alcaraz
 
He may be able to beat Murray on grass. Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Pete at their let slams forget it. Not a chance. Murray may still be tough though cause he would really cause problems to Carlos serve
 
zakopinjo said:
This is completely unnecessary. Novak and Federer are much more down to earth when it comes to trophies.
Novak keeps all his trophies in his family home.
Click to expand...
1) You're not up to date. The Serbian president has promised to build a museum for Djoko:
www.tennis.com

A museum for Novak Djokovic in Serbia? The country's president says plans are underway | Tennis.com

"We will strive to showcase what Djokovic has done for our country in accordance with his merits and at the same time attract tourists," says Aleksandar Vucic.
www.tennis.com www.tennis.com


2) Fed wouldn't have filmed this commercial, if he were "down to earth when it comes to trophies":
 
Only arguable one is Djokovic since he wasn't all that at 2010 AO.

But even then Alcaraz lost to his grandpa version half injured so i wouldn't bet against the serb.
 
Dropshot777 said:
I would say that 22 years old is a bad question because 22 year old Nadal was near his prime while 22 year old Novak was not that great yet so that affects it too much. I’m gonna answer 25 years old vs 22 years old instead:

I would say the most likely would be Raz beating Federer at Wimbledon because Roger is less of a specialist at this slam than all the other options and Wimbledon has been Alcatraz’s best slam in recent years. I would give Alcaraz maybe a 40% chance of winning here. I’d actually give Roger a better chance of winning at both hc slams over Wimbledon

Second most likely would probably be Nadal at RG. This may sound weird, but RG is a good slam for Alcaraz and his game when on is devastating and could trouble Rafa. I’d say Alcaraz has about a 30% chance of winning.

Third most likely for Alcaraz to beat would be Djokovic in my opinion. This may also sound weird as the Australian is the only major Alcaraz hasn't won and it is basically Djokovic's house, but let me explain before you make any arguments. First of all, 25 year old Djokovic didn't have as good a serve as current Djokovic does as that is his main improvement, and definitely not a serve or volley game like Sampras. Alcaraz prefers to play people who are less agressive, and has had trouble with serve-volleyers and people who mix it up well. Just look at how he dropped a set against Purcell in their only encounter despite him being lowly ranked, his big-time struggles with Struff and Botic (Not serve-volleyer but yes a big server) he would not struggle as much with Djokovic's game as he would with Sampras's. I'd give him about 25% chance of winning.

Now Sampras. Sure Alcaraz won the U.S., but it was against poor opponents. Nothing like Sampras. Assuming they both had the same type of racket and string, especially if it is metal, I would give Sampras the win in three close sets. Unlike Agassi, Alcaraz does not take the return early enough to greatly trouble Pete’s serve. About a 20% chance for Alcaraz
Click to expand...
Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
Alcaraz vs the Big 3, an age-by-age comparison (UPDATED)
2 3
Replies
145
Views
11K
junkieballer
J
Sport
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs. Alcaraz. Who possesses a superior peak on hard courts?
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
8K
iuyhii
I
The_Order
Some more mind boggling stats for us to wrap our heads around now...
Replies
27
Views
2K
xFedal
xFedal
Aussie Darcy
Ages of the 4R players highlight the issues for the ATP compared to the WTA. Just 1 player over 30 for the WTA vs 9 for the ATP
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
hoodjem
hoodjem
D
Nadal not good enough to meet Federer outside of clay from 2004-2008
7 8 9
Replies
406
Views
22K
Pantera
P
Back
Top