Alcaraz Makes History?

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

They used to win slams at that age or younger. Now its a huge achievement they reach #5. LOL. Talk about lowering standards

 

[helterskelter]

Rafa broke out much younger than in his 20s.

He's the only one in decades, though. Alcaraz tracks relatively well next to everyone else apart from Nadal (and perhaps Andriy Medvedev, who never quite made it at the very top), even Djokovic.

 

[Russeljones]

I think it's very unlikely that we'll go back to the 1970s and 1980s where it was fairly common for teenagers to be competitive at the very top. That age shift happened a while ago: since Sampras won the US Open 1990, Nadal is the only teenager to make a slam final. Even Djokovic's big jump came only two months before he turned 20 and so he didn't make a slam semi until after he was 20. Medvedev did great things as a teenager. So did a handful of others. But it hasn't been common in more than 30 years. I don't think it will be again in the future.

We need a very special type of temperament on a very special type of young athlete. Odds are lower than someone making the Kessel Run under 12 parsecs.

 

[Marco Rotim]

Alcaraz might only be as good as Hewitt. Perhaps. We'll see. But I highly doubt that there is anyone born in 2004 or 2005 who is better than him. Here are the people born in 2004 and 2005 with ATP rankings inside the top 600:

1. Luca van Assche (born 11 May 2004); ATP ranking = 282.
2. Juncheng Shang (born 2 February 2005); ATP ranking = 346.
3. Arthur Fils (born 12 June 2004); ATP ranking = 347.
4. Sean Cuenin (born 16 February 2004); ATP ranking = 517.
5. Daniel Merida (born 26 September 2004); ATP ranking = 535.
6. Mili Poljic (born 13 July 2004); ATP ranking = 538.

Bear in mind that even someone born on 31 December 2005 is 16 and a half and is the age that Alcaraz was in November 2019. Alcaraz was ranked in the top 500 by then. Sure, Van Assche is now in the top 300. But he is 18 and two months and so is the age that Alcaraz was in July 2021. Alcaraz started that month ranked 75 and ended it ranked 55.

It is unlikely that we can predict in advance when an all-time great player will emerge.

Someone born in 2005 would still be 16 or just turn 17 now this year.

At 16 Federer was ranked 700+ and at 17 he was still ranked 300
At 16 Djokovic was ranked 679 but at 17 he was ranked 186

Of course Nadal was ranked 200 at 16, and then ranked 49 at 17, but that is rare.

Maybe you are right, if not 2005 then 2006/7 borns, good talents will come.

The brightest talent of the 1990s Borns was Alexander Zverev, he was the first 20 year old to enter top 10 rankings (in 2017) since Djokovic in 2007, but Zverev ruined many good years doing nothing.

 

[clayqueen]

He's the only one in decades, though. Alcaraz tracks relatively well next to everyone else apart from Nadal (and perhaps Andriy Medvedev, who never quite made it at the very top), even Djokovic.

They just want Alcaraz to be the next Nadal.

 

[helterskelter]

Someone born in 2005 would still be 16 or just turn 17 now this year.

At 16 Federer was ranked 700+ and at 17 he was still ranked 300
At 16 Djokovic was ranked 679 but at 17 he was ranked 186

Of course Nadal was ranked 200 at 16, and then ranked 49 at 17, but that is rare.

Maybe you are right, if not 2005 then 2006/7 borns, good talents will come.

The brightest talent of the 1990s Borns was Alexander Zverev, he was the first 20 year old to enter top 10 rankings (in 2017) since Djokovic in 2007, but Zverev ruined many god years doing nothing.

It might not be 2006 or 2007, either. It might not be 2008 or 2009. It might not be 2010. Who knows? Of course it will come at some point, but it's impossible to know when. It hasn't happened in quite a while, and it might yet be quite a while longer. (I say this as someone who is more positive about Alcaraz than you are. I think he has a chance to become an all-time great). I do agree that it's likely that there will end up being a great player born at some point between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2009, but not that it's likely that there will end up being a great player born at some point between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2005.

Agreed on Zverev. He has not made the most of his talent, but he did have it. He could have become an all-time great. After the injury, now he'll be doing well to end his career with a slam.

 

[ChaelAZ]

From a few trusted sources I follow who track junior tennis, you're totally right. We are in a talent desert right now, there is a severe lack of superstar-like prospects in the coffers.

I kow a few US boys to watch. The question is, will they go right to tour or as 5 star blue chip hit college.

Kuzuhara is one to watch. Makes deep runs in any tourney he is in and won Aussie Jr.s this year. But juniors is different.

 

[clayqueen]

He's the only one in decades, though. Alcaraz tracks relatively well next to everyone else apart from Nadal (and perhaps Andriy Medvedev, who never quite made it at the very top), even Djokovic.

Rafa doesn't get enough credit for being a child prodigy. It would ruin Fedr's legacy. They are happy to big up Alcaraz because he's not competing with Fedr.

 

[Beulah Jesus]

Alcaraz even better than Nadal when adjusted for difficulty of the era.

You had to adjust for something to diminish Rafa's accomplishment. So typical.

 

[helterskelter]

Rafa doesn't get enough credit for being a child prodigy. It would ruin Fedr's legacy.

Well, I've said in a couple of posts in this thread that Nadal is by far the best teenager in men's tennis in the last three decades. There's no doubt about that.

Going further back, I think the four great teenagers of the open era are (in chronological order): Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, and Rafael Nadal. I started a thread comparing the four of them a while back. It's actually an interesting comparison - the other three all won multiple slam titles before turning 20, whereas Nadal won his second slam title aged 20 years and 8 days, so to me that doesn't count as a teenage achievement, but he was very close. And given his overall resume he is definitely in contention for best teen of the open era. The four of them are pretty close.

Alcaraz is perhaps the third-best teenager since 1990. Medvedev probably second best. Depending on how Alcaraz does in the next nine and a bit months, he has a decent shot of overtaking Medvedev for second place. (Medvedev made a slam semi - Roland Garros 1993 - which Alcaraz hasn't yet done. Medvedev won two MS events, so was tied with Alcaraz in that regard).

 

[metsman]

It's a cool feat, but Ned would have cracked the current top 5 around 14 I think.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Its kinda weird how long it takes guys to do this….

 

[Marco Rotim]

@Marco Rotim I see that you've read this post, but I'm editing it to add that there is still a possibility that Alcaraz will be a Hewitt-type player but then will give way to the next ATG but that ATG will be older than him, not younger. Sinner might be that ATG, for example. Not saying he will, but he might. Note that the ATG who took over from Hewitt was only six months younger than Hewitt but was a later developer. Sinner might end up a late developer, too. (Not that he's doing badly to be ranked 10 before his 21st birthday and have made the QFs of three of the four slams, but a late developer compared to Alcaraz and some others).

It might not be 2006 or 2007, either. It might not be 2008 or 2009. It might not be 2010. Who knows? Of course it will come at some point, but it's impossible to know when. It hasn't happened in quite a while, and it might yet be quite a while longer. (I say this as someone who is more positive about Alcaraz than you are. I think he has a chance to become an all-time great). I do agree that it's likely that there will end up being a great player born at some point between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2009, but not that it's likely that there will end up being a great player born at some point between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2005.

Agreed on Zverev. He has not made the most of his talent, but he did have it. He could have become an all-time great. After the injury, now he'll be doing well to end his career with a slam.

There is also a possibility that Zverev/Tsitsipas/Shapo might not allow Alcaraz to take over and by the time Alcaraz is like 23 or 24 the guys younger to him would emerge as teenager and he gets a 2-3 year window only to win Anything is possible, I guess at this point Zverev is at a higher level that Alcaraz will be and he will need 2 years to cover that gap as Sascha is physically stronger and taller too, so we never know Sinner is good, not doubt, he is 6'2, took Nole to 5 sets, he might win some slams.

However there is a high possibility that talent will come sooner after Carlos than later.

See 1970s, it is had Agassi 1970, Sampras 1971
See 1980s, it had Federer 1981 and then Djokodal arrived in 86, 87
Then 1990s, Lost gen mugs like Thiem came, then later in 97 we have Sascha.
Now 2000s, we have Sinner 01 and Carlos 03

Now you see, after Pete-Andre there was a 10 year gap because these guys were too good, then after Novak there seems to be a 15 year gap because Big 3 are 3 great players

So assuming Carlos/Sinner are just transition era mugs, the 2000s decade will not go as far as 2010, it should have someone born in 2005 or 2006, around that period. Talent doesn't skip decades like that.

 

[helterskelter]

So assuming Carlos/Sinner are just transition era mugs, the 2000s decade will not go as far as 2010, it should have someone born in 2005 or 2006, around that period. Talent doesn't skip decades like that.

I don't think there will be teenagers winning much in the near future, no matter how good they are. The game relies more on strength than it did in the past and few teenagers are strong enough to be competitive. Nadal was much stronger at 19 than Federer or Djokovic. Becker matured very young, so too has Alcaraz. Other teen winners in the past relied a lot on flexibility and retrieval skills and they aren't as profitable these days as they were. Wilander or Chang or even Borg would be unlikely to win as young as they did were they around today. So even if there is a great player born in 2005 or 2006 - and I'm not sure there is - they might not be competitive at the very top until 2027 or 2028 or so.

Then again, the game might change again in a way that helps teenagers be more competitive. Difficult to crystal ball gaze.

Anyway, we'll see on Alcaraz. I think he could end up being nobody's mug, but he still has a lot to prove, of course.

 

[Tennfan123]

Wow! First person ever to make top five.
Cool

 

[ChaelAZ]

They used to win slams at that age or younger. Now its a huge achievement they reach #5. LOL. Talk about lowering standards

Nice. Who are these "they" you are referring to?
You're are a bit muffled.

Looks like only 7 of all 56 where 19 or younger. On quick glance I would guess average age was close to 23 on average.

List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era with age of first title

Age	Name	Tournament
33 years	Ken Rosewall	1968 French Open
29 years	Rod Laver	1968 Wimbledon
25 years	Arthur Ashe	1968 US Open
24 years	Jan Kodeš	1970 French Open
26 years	John Newcombe	1970 Wimbledon
24 years	Stan Smith	1971 US Open
34 years	Andrés Gimeno	1972 French Open
26 years	Ilie Năstase	1972 US Open
21 years	Jimmy Connors	1974 Australian Open
18 years	Björn Borg	1974 French Open
26 years	Manuel Orantes	1975 US Open
21 years	Mark Edmondson	1976 Australian Open
25 years	Adriano Panatta	1976 French Open
25 years	Roscoe Tanner	1977 Australian Open (January)
24 years	Guillermo Vilas	1977 French Open
23 years	Vitas Gerulaitis	1977 Australian Open (December)
20 years	John McEnroe	1979 US Open
26 years	Brian Teacher	1980 Australian Open
23 years	Johan Kriek	1981 Australian Open
17 years	Mats Wilander	1982 French Open
23 years	Yannick Noah	1983 French Open
24 years	Ivan Lendl	1984 French Open
17 years	Boris Becker	1985 Wimbledon
19 years	Stefan Edberg	1985 Australian Open
22 years	Pat Cash	1987 Wimbledon
17 years	Michael Chang	1989 French Open
30 years	Andrés Gómez	1990 French Open
19 years	Pete Sampras	1990 US Open
20 years	Jim Courier	1991 French Open
22 years	Michael Stich	1991 Wimbledon
22 years	Andre Agassi	1992 Wimbledon
22 years	Sergi Bruguera	1993 French Open
27 years	Thomas Muster	1995 French Open
22 years	Yevgeny Kafelnikov	1996 French Open
24 years	Richard Krajicek	1996 Wimbledon
20 years	Gustavo Kuerten	1997 French Open
24 years	Patrick Rafter	1997 US Open
30 years	Petr Korda	1998 Australian Open
21 years	Carlos Moyá	1998 French Open
20 years	Marat Safin	2000 US Open
29 years	Goran Ivanišević	2001 Wimbledon
20 years	Lleyton Hewitt	2001 US Open
26 years	Thomas Johansson	2002 Australian Open
26 years	Albert Costa	2002 French Open
23 years	Juan Carlos Ferrero	2003 French Open
21 years	Roger Federer	2003 Wimbledon
21 years	Andy Roddick	2003 US Open
25 years	Gastón Gaudio	2004 French Open
19 years	Rafael Nadal	2005 French Open
20 years	Novak Djokovic	2008 Australian Open
20 years	Juan Martín del Potro	2009 US Open
25 years	Andy Murray	2012 US Open
28 years	Stan Wawrinka	2014 Australian Open
25 years	Marin Čilić	2014 US Open
27 years	Dominic Thiem	2020 US Open
25 years	Daniil Medvedev	2021 US Open

 

[ChaelAZ]

For the big three:
Nadal 19
Djo 20
Fed 21

But okay!

 

[Marco Rotim]

I don't think there will be teenagers winning much in the near future, no matter how good they are. The game relies more on strength than it did in the past and few teenagers are strong enough to be competitive. Nadal was much stronger at 19 than Federer or Djokovic. Becker matured very young, so too has Alcaraz. Other teen winners in the past relied a lot on flexibility and retrieval skills and they aren't as profitable these days as they were. Wilander or Chang or even Borg would be unlikely to win as young as they did were they around today. So even if there is a great player born in 2005 or 2006 - and I'm not sure there is - they might not be competitive at the very top until 2027 or 2028 or so.

Then again, the game might change again in a way that helps teenagers be more competitive. Difficult to crystal ball gaze.

Anyway, we'll see on Alcaraz. I think he could end up being nobody's mug, but he still has a lot to prove, of course.

Yeah, maybe only Nadal and Becker can win today as teenagers, like you said, Game is very tough for teenagers.

I feel Sascha and the late 90s gang won't allow Alcaraz/Sinner to directly take over, so the 2020s decade we might be in for some weak and dull years before some kid who is really interesting arrives..... bad days for Tennis ahead.

Djokovic and Nadal are in for a treat maybe, especially Djokovic, he won't even be retiring after the next olympics in 2024, maybe he will be aiming for 1 more olympics at 41 in 2028

 

[vex]

Alcaraz even better than Nadal when adjusted for difficulty of the era.

Yep, this is a Spicy! response. Lol

 

[sportsfan1]

Yes the ranking is a historical achievement.

After Carlos beat nadal and Djokovic back to back winning madrid, the expectations skyrocketed to predictions of winning the next few slams and 20+ career slams for him. It was a great achievement, but the sample size is so small. Zverev won wtfs, m1000s, and had a few wins over djokodal, but hasn't won any slams. Medvedev beat Djokovic to win uso after zverev tired djok out, but has since lost all matches to Djokovic.

Yes CA maybe the next big superstar, but the expectations train took off too fast. He holds his nerve better than perhaps a lot of his peers, is fast around the court,has had one sided wins over them, but still is to be tested in the biggest of situations.

 

[abmk]

Well, Nadal is apparently the sixth-youngest player to reach the top five, so I guess that's not an achievement, either, by your logic.

clayqueen is beyond all such things as logic. She's a genius beyond compare!

 

[big ted]

18/19 yo rafa wouldnt have lost to musetti yesterday lol...
carlos is good but not rafa good lol

 

[ChaelAZ]

18/19 yo rafa wouldnt have lost to musetti yesterday lol...
carlos is good but not rafa good lol

But better than Djokovic and Fed. Got it.

 

[big ted]

But better than Djokovic and Fed. Got it.

he is?

 

[Sudacafan]

Where are Sinner, FAA, and Tsitsipas?
OK, never mind, I don’t care.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Alcaraz even better than Nadal when adjusted for difficulty of the era.

Roflmao stop trolling, sir. 2005 Rafa would wipe the floor with today's competition including his own version, Djokovic, Alcaraz and every tom,dick & Harry.

 

[Sudacafan]

Roflmao stop trolling, sir. 2005 Rafa would wipe the floor with today's competition including his own version, Djokovic, Alcaraz and every tom,dick & Harry.

Nadal 2005 beat Puerta on drugs. Ríos 1998 couldn’t do that with Korda Sr.
Nuff said.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Nadal 2005 beat Puerta on drugs. Ríos 1998 couldn’t do that with Korda Sr.
Nuff said.

Joking aside, 2005 Nadal was the greatest ever teenager.

 

[Sudacafan]

Joking aside, 2005 Nadal was the greatest ever teenager.

If I had a Time Machine that brought me back to my teens, I will like to be like the Rafa.

 

[clayqueen]

They used to win slams at that age or younger. Now its a huge achievement they reach #5. LOL. Talk about lowering standards

They are just keen for someone to break through.

 

[clayqueen]

Joking aside, 2005 Nadal was the greatest ever teenager.

The establishment didn't want to accept it because they were all fawning over Federer even though it was clear that Rafa had more raw talent than Federer and everyone was buying into the Federer hype. If Alcaraz had evolved in Federer's time they wouldn't have given him the time of day.

 

[Sudacafan]

The establishment didn't want to accept it because they were all fawning over Federer even though it was clear that Rafa had more raw talent than Federer and everyone was buying into the Federer hype. If Alcaraz had evolved in Federer's time they wouldn't have given him the time of day.

The establishment is Soviet Communist and should be stopped now.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Joking aside, 2005 Nadal was the greatest ever teenager.

The greatest ever teenager who become the greatest ever geriatric as well. Sounds very fishy tbh.

 

[clayqueen]

The greatest ever teenager who become the greatest ever geriatric as well. Sounds very fishy tbh.

Just means Rafa is the greatest ever.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Just means Rafa is the greatest ever.

Actually it's pretty crazy. I'm following all kinda sports and I don't remember a case when one guy is a child prodigy and a geriatric phenom at the same time. Nadal is a unique case in this regard.

 

[Rattie]

The greatest ever teenager who become the greatest ever geriatric as well. Sounds very fishy tbh.

It’s GOAT stuff. Didn’t you know?

 

[mattennis]

18/19 yo rafa wouldnt have lost to musetti yesterday lol...
carlos is good but not rafa good lol

He lost 7-5 6-2 against Andreev (on clay)

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

The establishment didn't want to accept it because they were all fawning over Federer even though it was clear that Rafa had more raw talent than Federer and everyone was buying into the Federer hype. If Alcaraz had evolved in Federer's time they wouldn't have given him the time of day.

I don't agree with this, ma'am.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

The greatest ever teenager who become the greatest ever geriatric as well. Sounds very fishy tbh.

Stop spending too much time nearby an aquarium, sir.

 

[big ted]

He lost 7-5 6-2 against Andreev (on clay)

well ok but now carlos has to win his next 81 clay matches lol

On this day in 2005: Rafael Nadal loses to Igor Andreev before embarking on incredible 81-match win streak on clay (sportskeeda.com)

 

[D.Nalby12]

Insecure VBs Lol !!

 

[clayqueen]

Alcaraz even better than Nadal when adjusted for difficulty of the era.

And who makes the era difficult? Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[clayqueen]

What? Is no part of tennis history sacred? When did this happen, you loon?

They were in denial that Rafa was a phenomenon who was better than Federer at the same age.

 

[clayqueen]

I don't agree with this, ma'am.

Why don't you agree?

 

[Russeljones]

They were in denial that Rafa was a phenomenon who was better than Federer at the same age.

Complete nonsense. Federer took a while to get going, and this was no secret. I thought the Novak fans had the monopoly on victim stories so you better get ready for a reaction from them.

 

[clayqueen]

Complete nonsense. Federer took a while to get going, and this was no secret. I thought the Novak fans had the monopoly on victim stories so you better get ready for a reaction from them.

You don't want to acknowledge the facts. People still think Federer is the most successful player of all time because of the wall to wall brainwashing that went on and is still going on even though it's now clear that he is the 3rd wheel.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Why don't you agree?

A number of points.

 

[clayqueen]

A number of points.

But which points?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

But which points?

For starters

1) I don't think either Federer or Nadal are more talented than the other
2) Federer was at the very peak of his powers in 2005, however I don't think any media or analyst thought of Nadal as an inferior, plus I don't think Rafa was robbed off of headlines and coverage. In fact he was the talk of the year as far as I remember

 

[clayqueen]

For starters

1) I don't think either Federer or Nadal are more talented than the other
2) Federer was at the very peak of his powers in 2005, however I don't think any media or analyst thought of Nadal as an inferior, plus I don't think Rafa was robbed off of headlines and coverage. In fact he was the talk of the year as far as I remember

In 2005, Federer was 24 so it took him all that time to get to the peak of his powers whilst Nadal's talents were obvious when he was 17.