Carlos's WN1 title in 2022 doesn't have any merit to it in comparisons. He wasn't even the second best player of the season. He was the real no1 in 2025.
Carlos Alcaraz is much better than everyone he is the greatest and watch him win 25 plus slams now.
I woudn't proclaim him the best ever tbh , the best ever 22 year old ? yes. He has many many mountains to climb still.
So what ? Borg willingly chose not to play in Australia because of prize money, calendar date and prestige. Most of the players from that time skipped the AO.
Was response to overall thread. Had Borg been the rare one to skipped AO woulnd't qualify him. Looks like we are in the same boat. I meant as you can't say Alcaraz is better since Borg's time nobody care AO.
I don't come to the same conclusion as you though i don't like rewriting history. If they never slowed down grass nadal wouldn't have a wimbledon title ...I don't do ifs
Agree to disagree then. How anyone can imply Carlos better because he has WN1 in comparison to Nadal or anyone else. Carlos has WN1 title in 2022 simply because Wimbledon didn't give points that year. It never happened before. Everyone still care highly and competed, Nadal and Djokovic would have been ranked higher otherwise. It wasn't exhibition lol.
My point about double standards stands though, if you're gonna say we can't compare borg to carlos. Then we can't compare Wimbledon champions after they slowed down the courts early 00's to past champions. Because it wasn't the same surface anymore. And in that case we can safely assume that Nadal never wins a title on faster grass because he was never a great player on fast surfaces (ie atp finals ) .
Borg won his 7th during his 20th slam too lol. The same as Carlos.
No i agreed that teenage Nadal has the better accomplishments compared to Carlos , I was addressing the Borg - Carlos comparisons.
Not so accurate. Borg played 4 slams in the age of 16 and 17. Borgs 1974 AO(5th) corresponds to Alcaraz's first major apperance 2021 AO.
One is atleast countable with objectivity 3 is not same as 4 one simply has less chance that's what i wanted to say. Others are more of an opinion. While true that it's unlikely you can't be sure on anyone, like how would Federer do on faster years etc. I agree very hard to compare eras.
Nadal was good on slowed grass not 90's grass which is my whole point .
Exactly my point yes , no point in doing time machine hypotheticals. The records are what they are.
