It’s nowhere near the level that it was for Rafa’s emergence. He came along during Fed’s dominance and was the first real threat. Plus his playing style & look was so unique & caught everyone’s eye.
Nadal is just a better tennis player, accept and move on.Commentators are beginning to say Alcaraz is better than Rafa & Novak at the same age. They can’t have been watching tennis then because he is nowhere near the 18 year old Rafa.
Rafa won 2 Masters at the age of 18 and a slam days after he turned 19. Alcaraz turns 19 in May. Let’s see what happens.
Nadal was way way betterNadal is just a better tennis player, accept and move on.
Nadal defeated a prime federer at age 17, and Alcaraz on the other hand cannot beat an aging NadalNadal is just a better tennis player, accept and move on.
Overcoming prime Fed was one of Nadal's greatest feats. More impressive than overcoming Djokovic, IMO.True. I so remember Federer was like unstoppable then. He was unbeaten in grand slam finals until 2006 RG. The way Nadal handled the pressure at such a young age is unbelievable and super heroic. He beat Federer in 5 slam finals between 2006-2009.
If not for Nadal he would have probably raced to 20 grand slams by 2009 itself.
While Alcaraz will most likely not achieve such heights, it would be great if he could torment Novak in a similar fashion.
Overall, Nadal has NOT overcome Djokovic, off a clay court as Novak leads into their H-H, Weeks and YE at #1 which are accomplishments much more than Rafa's 1 slam advantage.Overcoming prime Fed was one of Nadal's greatest feats. More impressive than overcoming Djokovic, IMO.
100% agree. He overcame Novak in 2012-14 by when he had experience and confidence from a lot of success.Overcoming prime Fed was one of Nadal's greatest feats. More impressive than overcoming Djokovic, IMO.
Well, I was more impressed by him overcoming Fed because Fed actually gave everything he had in those Wimb and AO finals that he lost. Novak wasn't anywhere near as good in the USO 2013 F for example so beating him there wasn't as impressive as beating a well-playing Fed.100% agree. He overcame Novak in 2012-14 by when he had experience and confidence from a lot of success.
When he faced prime fed, he was a newbie and very much the underdog. Nadal really shocked everyone and I still remember how Fed fans just couldn't accept the 2008-09 losses.
I hope he wins, but if he does he'd be 32 days shy of turning 19.He's not better, but not worse than Rafa either. If he wins Miami, he will be ahead of Rafa age-wise.
Ah ok. That's right Novak wasn't at his best in 2013F.Well, I was more impressed by him overcoming Fed because Fed actually gave everything he had in those Wimb and AO finals that he lost. Novak wasn't anywhere near as good in the USO 2013 F for example so beating him there wasn't as impressive as beating a well-playing Fed.
I don't think that many believed Rafa would have lost at 2012 RG. He was so dominant during the clay court season overall and didn't srop a set to Novak at MC and Rome. And he was well on his way to straight-setting Novak at RG too if not for the muddy conditions.Ah ok. That's right Novak wasn't at his best in 2013F.
But I think he was very good in 2013 SF RG. He was a break up in the 5th.
Also before 2012 RG Final, he was on a winning streak against Nadal. Many expected Rafa to lose in 2012 RG F.
So I think the 3 victories in 2012-13 were really a great achievement and crucial to stopping Novak. Roger couldn't do that as he lost back to back Wimbledon finals to Novak in 2014 and 2015 and then also the USO F in 2015.
So the way I see it, Rafa put the breaks on both Prime Roger and prime Novak.
LOL no.I think the Alcaraz hype feels bigger than the Nadal hype because of:
1_ Social media. So many posts and retweets and highlight reels
2_ desperation for a new champ. It's been 20 years nearly since a genuine great great player comes through.
Nadal had a lot of hype even though there was no social media. This guy was doing amazing things at 16. Alcaraz is not as good as Nadal, but I've always maintained that counter=punchers peak earlier than attacking players, and Alcaraz certainly likes to attack. He already looks so comfortable slicing/volleying/stepping in and attacking the net. Djokovic peaked much later but ended up being a superior player to Nadal so it's fine for Rafa to be the benchmark for teen prodigies.
And Gasquet had A LOT of hype too. He beat Fed at 17 or 18 at a clay masters, can't remember exactly. But one thing that saddens me about Gasquet is he lost a lot of the aggression and flair he played with when he was young. He used to really go after his forehand and attack the points more (I guess a lot of teens do), but yeah ,Gasquet and Rafa were nearly on equal footing for a while on those early days when both were playing the WTF's in shanghai etc.
I actually think you are incredibly correct about #2. There's a palpable desperation to get to a new heir apparent to the Big 3 era. People wouldn't know how to handle a WTA-style, wide open ATP.I think the Alcaraz hype feels bigger than the Nadal hype because of:
1_ Social media. So many posts and retweets and highlight reels
2_ desperation for a new champ. It's been 20 years nearly since a genuine great great player comes through.
Nadal had a lot of hype even though there was no social media. This guy was doing amazing things at 16. Alcaraz is not as good as Nadal, but I've always maintained that counter=punchers peak earlier than attacking players, and Alcaraz certainly likes to attack. He already looks so comfortable slicing/volleying/stepping in and attacking the net. Djokovic peaked much later but ended up being a superior player to Nadal so it's fine for Rafa to be the benchmark for teen prodigies.
And Gasquet had A LOT of hype too. He beat Fed at 17 or 18 at a clay masters, can't remember exactly. But one thing that saddens me about Gasquet is he lost a lot of the aggression and flair he played with when he was young. He used to really go after his forehand and attack the points more (I guess a lot of teens do), but yeah ,Gasquet and Rafa were nearly on equal footing for a while on those early days when both were playing the WTF's in shanghai etc.
Ah yes.. I think I got confused with 2011 RG. That was when Novak was in prime form and had beaten Nadal in clay season. Roger took out Novak at FO and Nadal himself once said that he was lucky to avoid Novak in FO 2011.I don't think that many believed Rafa would have lost at 2012 RG. He was so dominant during the clay court season overall and didn't srop a set to Novak at MC and Rome. And he was well on his way to straight-setting Novak at RG too if not for the muddy conditions.
As for Fed not putting the brakes on prime Novak, well yeah, Fed was in his mid 30's at that point. Nadal was in his mid to late 20's. Big difference.
He wasn't supposed to win any of those 2 Wimb finals. Novak was just better in them.Ah yes.. I think I got confused with 2011 RG. That was when Novak was in prime form and had beaten Nadal in clay season. Roger took out Novak at FO and Nadal himself once said that he was lucky to avoid Novak in FO 2011.
Regarding Fed, yes he was in his 30s so that played against him. But still I feel he should have atleast won 1 of the 2 Wimbledon finals then. (And also the 2019 ofcourse). I feel Novak just got to his head.
Currently the hype is based on his highlight reel, not his results. But you've got to admit, it's a damn good highlight reel...
Very similar to Gasquet, I'd say. Beautiful game, bags of hype, some big wins, hadn't actually won all that much. Way behind Nadal, who at his age was about to win his first major, more hype than Novak had, which was more about how much potential he had to be great.
Also there was some reluctance to accept that anyone was as good as or better than Roger so they were holding back on the Rafa hype and Rafa had to keep proving himself time and time again because they didn't want the Federer bubble to burst.It’s nowhere near the level that it was for Rafa’s emergence. He came along during Fed’s dominance and was the first real threat. Plus his playing style & look was so unique & caught everyone’s eye.
Alcaraz is at a different time, where there’s a lull in terms of a dominant superstar. Media are so desperate for the next big thing which inflated the hype.
Plus the kid has done nothing yet in terms of major wins. I think expectations need to be kept in check here
At the same time, Alcaraz hasn't swept anyone off the court yet. Tsitsipas is the only top player he has beaten granted he hasn't played many of them much. He is 0:1 against Medvedev, 0:2 against Sasha, 2:0 vs Tsitsipas, 0:2 vs Nadal and yet to play Djokovic.It’s also based on results—he’s 16-2 on the year and hasn’t been beaten easily or soundly outplayed once as an 18 years old. This basically never happens unless one of a handful of greats. He’s going to have to solidify this streak at some slams this year, though, and I can see him doing it.
I'm going to push back a bit here and say Gasquet was way behind Alcaraz at the same age in terms of what he had done.
The year Gasman turned 19 he won 1 title (Nottingham, defeated #61, 274, 37, 30, #40 max Mirny in final).
- Had a great Monte Carlo run (beat Davydenko #15, Fed #1, and pushed rafa in a close 3 sets semi off the back of 2 challenger titles.
- Didn't crack an Elo of 2000 til after his 119th birthday.
He basically had a great week. The rest of his year he only beat 2 top 20 guys (Hbarty #18, and Ljubicic #19) and went 31-11. We saw his ceiling but his range was/is wide.
Alcaraz is 16-2 and it just turned to APRIL. In those 16 wins, he's only dropped a set in 3 of them. The guy is dominating, already 5 top-20 wins (Berrettini #6, RBA #15 SMOKED, #12 Norrie, #14 Schwartzman, #5 Tsitsipas, . Elo already about to cross 2100. The two matches he lost (Berrettini in 5, Nadal in 3) where very close and he had his chances. He's basically been very very hard to stop.
At the same age, Nadal's elo was only MARGINALLY above Alcaraz. Alcaraz is actually tracking remarkably close to nadal, and better than the other big 3/nextgen guys.
This is from last week, so I expect it to be higher when updated in a day or two.
What's more, Gasquet always had clear limitations in his game with his :
forehand (I actually think his early forehand was technically a lot better, but it still wasn't great).
movement. No where near Alcaraz who is close to Rafa
Court craft. Alcaraz has the drop shot, the volley, the slice. You can see he actually has a really good grasp of nearly every facet, which is freakin ridiculous to be frank.
It is annoying though to listen to commentators saying Alcaraz is even better than Nadal and Djoovic were at this stage. That is simply not true and casual tennis fans will take it as gospel truth.Nadal is just a better tennis player, accept and move on.
At the same time, Alcaraz hasn't swept anyone off the court yet. Tsitsipas is the only top player he has beaten granted he hasn't played many of them much. He is 0:1 against Medvedev, 0:2 against Sasha, 2:0 vs Tsitsipas, 0:2 vs Nadal and yet to play Djokovic.
The comparison is NOT relevant. Everyone develops differently. Fed became a winning machine later in his career. Novak became Novak 2.0 in 2011.I wasn't around (at least not the tennis world) for the hype trains of Nadal, Gasquet, Djokovic, and Murray. Especially with Nadal, how does Alcaraz' hype compare to what they were receiving as youngsters?
By the way, I'm not implying it's deserved or undeserved, just comparing for those who have been around tennis that long.
Future ratings and viewership prob drives that aspect more than anything else. Everybody's waiting on 'the new kid in town.' But the kid is damn good.It is annoying though to listen to commentators saying Alcaraz is even better than Nadal and Djoovic were at this stage. That is simply not true and casual tennis fans will take it as gospel truth.
Also there was some reluctance to accept that anyone was as good as or better than Roger so they were holding back on the Rafa hype and Rafa had to keep proving himself time and time again because they didn't want the Federer bubble to burst.
It is annoying though to listen to commentators saying Alcaraz is even better than Nadal and Djoovic were at this stage. That is simply not true and casual tennis fans will take it as gospel truth.
I actually think you are incredibly correct about #2. There's a palpable desperation to get to a new heir apparent to the Big 3 era. People wouldn't know how to handle a WTA-style, wide open ATP.
He won two events aged 18, which is 2 more than practically all the NextGen big names won when they were 18.Currently the hype is based on his highlight reel, not his results. But you've got to admit, it's a damn good highlight reel...
Rafa owned Djokovic until his frequent injury-fillied stop, start, stop, start began in 2012.Overcoming prime Fed was one of Nadal's greatest feats. More impressive than overcoming Djokovic, IMO.
I would only hold it against him if despite that he is still being hyped up as better than Nadal was at this stage.It's virtually impossible to live up to the Nadal-standard. I certainly wouldn't hold it against him if he didn't win ELEVEN titles this season, including a major and four master's.
They earned it first.The big three were all hyped through the roof and they actually stood up to the expectations. Lets see what Alcaraz does.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous to compare him to young Joker. Imo he’s better than Fed was at 18. Nadal is prob a step too far atm.Future ratings and viewership prob drives that aspect more than anything else. Everybody's waiting on 'the new kid in town.' But the kid is damn good.
Alcaraz is the next Dimitrov
It's doing my head in.Lol you’re so pressed someone else is getting some shine. It‘s OK for other players to get some attention.
Alcaraz is way more aggressive than Nadal. Other than speed, I don’t see a ton of similarities. He’s really more of a hybrid of Fed & Joker.Should we start calling him Baby Nadal then? Lol
Alcaraz is way more aggressive than Nadal. Other than speed, I don’t see a ton of similarities. He’s really more of a hybrid of Fed & Joker.
Grigor was a false prophet. Alcaraz will carry on the legacy of Idemo & Chum Jetze with honor.Im mostly going with the Spanish and good on clay angle - and playing off of people calling Dmitrov "Baby Fed."
Corrected.The one that still boggles my mind is Nick Kyrgios.
People have been hyping this guy for almost 10 years and he still hasn't made a grand slamfinalsemifinal yet.
He also gets the same amount of press coverage as the Big 3.