Alcaraz vs. Big 3: Season-by-season breakdown !

[Jav]

I wanted to keep it on a purely season-by-season basis since they were born within a month. You can include ao 26 but the season just started ...since my comparison gives points to every season won if you look at my OP.

In fact best comparison we can make as to date is 2005 - march 2009 to 2022 - march 2026:

• Same age
• Same time span (4y 3m)
• Same initial big breakthrough season
• Up to date (most complete evidence, hence fairest case for Raz)

It basically goes

For HC:
GS: x1 (AO) | x3 (USO x2; AO)
M1000 + others: x6 (Canada x2, Madrid, IW x2, OG) | x4 (Miami, IW x2, Cincy)
ATP 500: x2 (Beijing, Dubai) | x4 (Beijing, Rotterdam, Tokio, Doha)
TOTAL 9 | 11

For grass:
Wimbledon: x1 | x2
ATP500 (Queens): x1 | x2
TOTAL 2 | 4

I don't see how Raz can be seen yet as worse by any objective metric on any of these. Don't think we can't dismiss recent results just for convenience or because it doesn't fit narrative. That'd be cherry-picking.

So I think it's fair to say Raz is a better player than baby Big 3 in 8/9 surfaces (x3 for each), claydal being the clear exception. I consider it fair if one dismissed his grass or even HC adv Vs. Ned, it's still fine margins, and got Nadal as the overall better, more complete youngster even. Similarly though, people need to start opening their minds for Raz' case as well.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Hold on we're going into so many directions . To simplify , the argument should go back to who's had the better career so far or who's a better tennis player at 22? essentially a 04-08 vs 21-25 ? I don't see how slam dominance is the first thing your mind turns into ( not saying it's not relevant ) but isn't there a more holistic way at looking at it ?

I think my approach is plenty holistic: blending results (even), level of play (Nadal because the clay advantage is too big to be overcome, and it contributed to him winning each of their first 5 slams more decisively, you can plug him in just about any era and he will walk away with the same clay wins) and competition (Nadal had it tougher), Nadal was better.

Tennis is too competition and condition dependent to use results as the final word (if you do, then yes there’s little separating them). Else you are forced to conclude something like ‘11-‘16 / ‘18-‘23 Djokovic being striking distance of one another. And I’ll keep using ‘08-‘12 Fedal as a case study to illustrate how far Nadal’s clay superiority can take him even when bettered elsewhere: Fed had better results on HC/Indoors/grass and still had the more complete game (note: identical to the arguments being made for Carlos!) but who was the better player across those five years? Nadal, clearly.

(Funnily enough ‘08-‘12 Fed shades ‘22-present Carlos himself on grass and both varieties of HC, lmaooooooooooooooooooo…)

 

[Giocoswitch]

Did either Sinner or Djokovic produce form as good as Murray’s? Maybe them combined brings it level.

Murray has better movement and point construction than Sinner, but I think the 08 final gives us a good idea what happens if he's facing someone as aggressive, creative and big-hitting as Alcaraz. Certainly no more than equal opposition next to the USO25 bunch

 

[Jav]

He was a lazy error away from going down two sets but beyond that, how do the stakes going in affect Djokovic’s quality as an opponent vis-a-vis ‘06 Federer?

They don’t. One was at the peak of his powers, and a better grass courter to boot.

Funny thing is (going for a different year there, with the ones they actually won) Raz was at least a bigger underdog in that Wimb '23 F (2.60-2.80) than Rafa in Wimb '08 (2.30-2.60).

We see that W as inevitable now. Reality is:

• Novak was in a 45 streak on center court
• Trying to catch Roger record and on its way for CYGS (even more so retrospectively)
• Raz was just 20 and completely inexperienced on grass

Not saying that's on Novak being a better player then. Rafa was more "proven" by '08 and came up from destroying Roger back at RG. But it's not that far off (a notch below probably but not two or three as some would argue).

That's why I don't get either this

‘05 Rome = ‘22 Madrid (in reality ‘05 Rome is ahead, Coria was a very dogged opponent and that was one of the greatest non-slam matches ever, but I’m gonna give opponent name-value its day in the sun to be nice)

As you say, ain't no way Stepanek, Ferrer and Coria > Nadal, Djokovic and Zverev. Raz was a much bigger underdog, faced better opposition and won even better. SF Vs. Nole is underrated imo and the final was just a bloodbath.

If we're giving subpar opponents a pass for the times they're up to the task (as I think we should) then I don't get why we're making such a big deal with Raz when he struggled the times opponent got a legit performance too, especially when he didn't lose at all. What I think we can't do is going both ways. Nor take actual Ls as a measure for greatness either. Only as a tiebreaker, maybe. A certified W against any lesser opponent leading to a big title > A hard-fought L against prime GOATs. The rest is speculation

Take Sinner f.e.. Most people don't rate him at all on clay because of his 0 titles there. Yet his performances both at Rome (leading to the final at least) and RG '25 were worthy of the very best ATG winning runs. Raz stopped him both times. What do we make out of that? Well, most people still mock his level by his tally. Here again, can't work both ways.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Murray has better movement and point construction than Sinner, but I think the 08 final gives us a good idea what happens if he's facing someone as aggressive, creative and big-hitting as Alcaraz.

That’s mostly Murray running out of gas, and he likely wins the second set if not for a blown call.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Funny thing is (going for a different year there, with the ones they actually won) Raz was at least a bigger underdog in that Wimb '23 F (2.60-2.80) than Rafa in Wimb '08 (2.30-2.60).

We see that W as inevitable now.

I hear ya but I didn’t see it as inevitable then or now tbh. Predicted in a group chat Alcaraz would win:

Being a bargain Krali and putting 200 on Alcaraz. I want Djovak to pull through but wouldn’t be too upset if he lost, about time for Carlos to put his stamp on the mens game and the potential return is a nice blow-softener lol.

-

I’m getting positive impressions from him too. I know the serve-return complex favours Djovak by a landslide but I’ll go out on a limb and predict there will be no escape from Alcaraz over this fortnight. The kid is doing it.

^funnily enough, the prediction was right but I was wrong about how the serve-return played out.

Reality is:

• Novak was in a 45 streak on center court
• Trying to catch Roger record and on its way for CYGS (even more so retrospectively)
• Raz was just 20 and completely inexperienced on grass

Yeah but he didn’t play *that* well. Fine opponent but not compared to ‘06 Federer (Nadal’s opponent at the same stage).

Not saying that's on Novak being a better player then. Rafa was more "proven" by '08 and came up from destroying Roger back at RG. But it's not that far off (a notch below probably but not two or three as some would argue).

Obviously can’t prove this but I also correctly predicted Wimby ‘08.

Fed won the odds game because he hadn’t lost a set that GC season and even that iteration is firmly better than ‘23 Novak, but ‘06 Fed is the operative comparison point.

As you say, ain't no way Stepanek, Ferrer and Coria > Nadal, Djokovic and Zverev.

Well by that same token, no way is Sinner/Mussetti (‘25 RG) > Federer/Djokovic (‘08) in terms of name-value either, no?

Yet I called that one ‘even’ too.

I rate Coria as better competition subjectively because, well, I think he was. It was an all-time match, both played phenomenally and competed like their lives depended on it. Nadal and Djokovic, otoh, were fine-tuning for RG - Djokovic/Raz was a pretty good match iirc, but nothing too spell-binding.

Nonetheless, regardless of how I felt, I applied the same standard to both pairs of matches so I think I was pretty consistent.

If we're giving subpar opponents a pass for the times they're up to the task (as I think we should) then I don't get why we're making such a big deal with Raz when he struggled the times opponent got a legit performance too,

It’s only a big deal in the context of the current comparison to young Nadal, who didn’t have to struggle and parried strong opponent performances better in his winning runs predominantly because his level within them was higher.

He had access the same energy reserves but was only taken to a 5th set once in his first 5 Majors (8x for Raz).

That’s what his clay supremacy does. As a Federer fan it always felt a little unfair (Fed being better in 3 of the 4 main surfaces/conditions tennis is played under, yet still losing the slam race) but it is what it is. And not to sound like I’m beating a dead horse but I’ll adduce trusty ol’ ‘08-‘12 Fed again: slightly better on outdoor HC, much better on indoor HC, slightly better on grass, YET……………worse overall. Death taxes and Claydal.

Wasn’t fun, and I think if ‘05-‘08 Nadal and ‘22-‘25 Raz overlapped, roughly the same dynamic would play out as btwn ‘08-‘12 Fedal: clean clay sweep (again, roughly - ik Fed won in ‘09 ) for Nadal, and he’d sneak an off-clay slam, perhaps multiple, with the clay cushion and periodic BO3 HC heaters (4 Masters, same as Alcaraz, with more finals appearances) ensuring he does better in Masters too.

especially when he didn't lose at all. What I think we can't do is going both ways. Nor take actual Ls as a measure for greatness either. Only as a tiebreaker, maybe. A certified W against any lesser opponent leading to a big title > A hard-fought L against prime GOATs. The rest is speculation

We disagree on the primacy of binary wins and losses, but fair enough.

Take Sinner f.e.. Most people don't rate him at all on clay because of his 0 titles there. Yet his performances both at Rome (leading to the final at least) and RG '25 were worthy of the very best ATG winning runs. Raz stopped him both times.

Sinner was great at RG, and good in Rome, imo.

 

[tennis_pro]

Alcaraz went 2-5 over a 3 year span vs. a geriatric Djokovic. This is why JCF had to go. Unfortunately, it’s also completely disqualifying for any sort of GOAT case. The big 3 will always be above Sincaraz.

Djokovic had way worse losses at 22-23. Alcaraz has been amazing.

 

[Jav]

I hear ya but I didn’t see it as inevitable then or now tbh. Predicted in a group chat Alcaraz would win:

^funnily enough, the prediction was right but I was wrong about how the serve-return played out.

Sure. Just wanted to point out that at some point Raz was still the underdog for a reason, in case we may forget it. Sometimes we look at past games with today's glasses. I'm the first one to fall in that tbh

Yeah but he didn’t play *that* well. Fine opponent but not compared to ‘06 Federer (Nadal’s opponent at the same stage).

But I was talking about both Ws. Rafa lost that one, as stupidly good as his opponent was.

I clearly reckon 08' Fed was a step above (06' probably a step and a half) but those are still realistic chances in a hypothetical h2h. May get cooked for this but I'd rate 23' Nole chances no worse than Raz real bookies odds against him Vs. 08' Fed. That's because imo 08' F Rafa ~ 24' F Raz > 23' F Raz (may get roasted for this one instead)

Well by that same token, no way is Sinner/Mussetti (‘25 RG) > Federer/Djokovic (‘08) in terms of name-value either, no?

Yet I called that one ‘even’ too.

Would have no problem with that at all.

Not entirely convinced with these others though:

To get even more granular lets compare M1000 competition by wins:

‘05 MC > ‘22 Miami

I could live with that, but I think a ≥ would not be out of place either

Monfils, Rochus, Gaudio (that performance), Gasquet, Coria (the big outlier which balances things imo) ~ Cilic, Tsitsipas, Kecmanovic (that game), Hurkacz, Ruud

I reckon Rafa was considerably better there but focusing only on competition

‘07 MC > ‘25 Rome

Berdych, Federer (two big names but the only ones worth mentioning) ≤ Kachanov, Draper, Musetti, Sinner (great version at home)

Didn't go on to check the GS rivals one by one. That one we probably agree IIRC. I reckon Rafole got it tougher since the start, my personal double standards (so to say) critic refers more to early Fed era, not the topic here. I just don't think you got that generous as you initially thought. It's a rethorical bias imo

 

[Gastino]

Tennis is too competition and condition dependent to use results as the final word (if you do, then yes there’s little separating them). Else you are forced to conclude something like ‘11-‘16 / ‘18-‘23 Djokovic being striking distance of one another. And I’ll keep using ‘08-‘12 Fedal as a case study to illustrate how far Nadal’s clay superiority can take him even when bettered elsewhere: Fed had better results on HC/Indoors/grass and still had the more complete game (note: identical to the arguments being made for Carlos!) but who was the better player across those five years? Nadal, clearly.

I personally don't rate 1 surface dominance. I prefer a player who's good on every surface. I'm guessing you're a Nadal fan I'm curious now lol( please do tell which of the big3 you like). Nadal's biggest weapon(FH) didn't allow him to become great on HC or be close to fedovic. Once his speed died(his other biggest attribute overall) out sadly he for me lost his rivalry with novak. Nadal's game was simple and straightforward the monsterous FH was potent even on HC but not like a Fed FH potent. His game was idealy built for clay . Prevented his rivals from winning a consequent amount of RG's but he won significantly less on grass and HC. You proabbly understand where I'm going with this...

You didn't answer btw do you believe there's a gap between Carlos 21-25 and Nadal 04-08 as tennis players ?

 

[Gastino]

Heh, heh, you in the mood to poke the ever raging monster collectively presenting as the diaspora of BIG 3 diehards??? Man, you're in for a ride. They've got every single argument against even the whiff of an idea that .... ***Shock! Horror*** .... a kid excelling on the current tour could be compared to the 3 Maestros at a comparable age. Never mind the evidence / facts or how superbly he plays. Along with the myth of untouchability, there is that tiresome almost audible gasp of breath and tone suggesting it is blasphemy that comparisons should be made at all. In this context, the premise is " end of topic" or " nothing further to say" etc. Well, feck that.
The 3 Maestros set the benchmark in nuanced and varied ways,were superb and Carlitos is a mere fledgling. But he has learned to fly, dared to dream and achieve what he has in the context he finds himself in. True comparisons will only have meaning at the end of his career, but in the context of your discussion, he is at least as accomplished as they were at the same age. Will be interesting to see how the dude does, but for now, outstanding stuff.

Hey man ! I wanted to reply to your message earlier but the rhythm of this thread has been hectic to keep up with ! I've been keeping an eye on this kid since the summer of 21, That uso 21 run got me real real curious and low key I started tracking progression against ATG's ...once the spring of 22 happened it wasn't low key anymore, I started texting my tennis buddies about Carlos and how more precocious than Fed/Novak he was ...they got irritated by me and I was told off

I don't care about ruffling feathers to be perfectly honest hehe , I don't rate tennis opinions that don't rate Carlos Alcaraz ...I think he's legit and belongs to the same tier of talent . He's obviously hasn't had the careers or even peaks they achieved (yet ) . But at 22.5 he's running ahead of fedovic and by a hair ahead of nadal. So the young man's doing very well for himself I'd say hehe.

 

[Giocoswitch]

Djokovic had way worse losses at 22-23. Alcaraz has been amazing.

The same people who have Fedovic as their GOATs disqualifying Alcaraz from all discussions based on results before 22... palpable irony

Carlos is probably always going to be under immense scrutiny because of old Djoko finding ways to beat him, but I think people underestimate the size of the 16 year age gap both ways. It's not easy to find solutions when you're inexperienced and your opponent just isn't going away no matter what, even if their level point-to-point doesn't look the most spectacular. Now that we've seen something resembling prime Alcaraz a little more since then, hopefully people can stop exaggerating how bad those losses are.

 

[Tallawah Tennis]

Hey man ! I wanted to reply to your message earlier but the rhythm of this thread has been hectic to keep up with ! I've been keeping an eye on this kid since the summer of 21, That uso 21 run got me real real curious and low key I started tracking progression against ATG's ...once the spring of 22 happened it wasn't low key anymore, I started texting my tennis buddies about Carlos and how more precocious than Fed/Novak he was ...they got irritated by me and I was told off

I don't care about ruffling feathers to be perfectly honest hehe , I don't rate tennis opinions that don't rate Carlos Alcaraz ...I think he's legit and belongs to the same tier of talent . He's obviously hasn't had the careers or even peaks they achieved (yet ) . But at 22.5 he's running ahead of fedovic and my a hair ahead of nadal. So the young manis doing very well for himself I'd say hehe.

Yah man, you know what you know. These " yes he is/ no he isn't" exchanges are not new. As a tennis fan from before Roger's ascent/admirer of his exquisite game above all others-I have previously held diehard views too. My point about Carlitos is not that he is better at 22 than the B3, but he is at least comparable - achievements and quality of game. I rarely respond to threads that spin the same old, same old. Nor am I interested in persuading anyone of Carlitos' prowess. My days of those types of exchanges are gone - like I said, you know what you know.

Was listening to this song a moment ago and it occured to me that - to borrow the analogy but adapting it to tennis - Carlitos walks the (tennis) walk and talks the (tennis) talk - I like it. And his explosion onto the tour to dominate as he has done / achieve what he has - BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!

 

[Gastino]

The same people who have Fedovic as their GOATs disqualifying Alcaraz from all discussions based on results before 22... palpable irony

Carlos is probably always going to be under immense scrutiny because of old Djoko finding ways to beat him, but I think people underestimate the size of the 16 year age gap both ways. It's not easy to find solutions when you're inexperienced and your opponent just isn't going away no matter what, even if their level point-to-point doesn't look the most spectacular. Now that we've seen something resembling prime Alcaraz a little more since then, hopefully people can stop exaggerating how bad those losses are.

Preach brother , low self awareness and short sighted arguments ...I've seen better agenda building in my day

As a matter of a fact I'll do a whole thread on the whole 'geriatric Novak' thing ...they made a grave mistake in doing that argument because I will do a comparison with 'geriatric Fed' and what he did to the tour(allegedly in the most stacked era of tennis) .... these anecdotal evidences are just stupid and don't bring you far.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I clearly reckon 08' Fed was a step above (06' probably a step and a half) but those are still realistic chances in a hypothetical h2h. May get cooked for this but I'd rate 23' Nole chances no worse than Raz real bookies odds against him Vs. 08' Fed. That's because imo 08' F Rafa ~ 24' F Raz > 23' F Raz (may get roasted for this one instead)

Are you saying either of the '23 finalists would have any chance against '08 Fred? if so.

Monfils, Rochus, Gaudio (that performance), Gasquet, Coria (the big outlier which balances things imo) ~ Cilic, Tsitsipas, Kecmanovic (that game), Hurkacz, Ruud

I reckon Rafa was considerably better there but focusing only on competition

Quite illustrative that you put extra emphasis on Kecmanovic but not Gasquet.

Berdych, Federer (two big names but the only ones worth mentioning) ≤ Kachanov, Draper, Musetti, Sinner (great version at home)

Federer > all of the other mugs combined (i.e. it is more difficult to beat 2007 MC Federer alone than it is to beat KK+Draper+Mugset+Sinflop of Rome 2025)

Didn't go on to check the GS rivals one by one. That one we probably agree IIRC. I reckon Rafole got it tougher since the start, my personal double standards (so to say) critic refers more to early Fed era, not the topic here. I just don't think you got that generous as you initially thought. It's a rethorical bias imo

Would be useful to check your own bias as well, no?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Preach brother , low self awareness and short sighted arguments ...I've seen better agenda building in my day

As a matter of a fact I'll do a whole thread on the whole 'geriatric Novak' thing ...they made a grave mistake in doing that argument because I will do a comparison with 'geriatric Fed' and what he did to the tour(allegedly in the most stacked era of tennis) .... these anecdotal evidences are just stupid and don't bring you far.

Oldovic's great advantage over Aulderer is on clay, where Fred really didn't do much after 2012. Elsewhere it's either close or Federer clearly ahead.

 

[Gastino]

Oldovic's great advantage over Aulderer is on clay, where Fred really didn't do much after 2012. Elsewhere it's either close or Federer clearly ahead.

Nah but my point is people want to bring down the current era with 'geriatric djokovic', I can also bring down the mid-late 10's using 'geriatric fed' ....I'll do a whole detailed thread going into the specifics

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nah but my point is people want to bring down the current era with 'geriatric djokovic', I can also bring down the mid-late 10's using 'geriatric fed' ....I'll do a whole detailed thread going into the specifics

Djokofanbois won't like it for sure. You understand you'll find Fedfan support though as we're perfectly content to dunk on 2010s.

 

[messiahrobins]

Big 3 fans have to just accept Alcaraz is greater than any of them at same age except Nadal on clay.

We are witnessing greatness, just accept it. Probably much easier for fans of retired players obviously.

 

[messiahrobins]

Djokofanbois won't like it for sure. You understand you'll find Fedfan support though as we're perfectly content to dunk on 2010s.

Federer was nowhere near the player he was in noughties in the 10's. There is a reason Nadal has stated Federer was his greatest rival (i.e best he ever played). He played the best of Federer in noughties

 

[Giocoswitch]

Oldovic's great advantage over Aulderer is on clay, where Fred really didn't do much after 2012. Elsewhere it's either close or Federer clearly ahead.

Even then Fed's RG19 was pretty good, he's really just an unknown quantity in those years. As has been noted, the most favourable thing for Oldovic against his aged rivals is the lack of bad losses at slams, which tends to make direct comparisons in their average performance levels favourable (though as per with Djoko, less so the peaks).

 

[Giocoswitch]

Big 3 fans have to just accept Alcaraz is greater than any of them at same age except Nadal on clay.

We are witnessing greatness, just accept it. Probably much easier for fans of retired players obviously.

The more I think about it the more I believe that if they had been the same age, Nadal Alcaraz probably would have been the best rivalry ever. The best talents ever with huge weapons, no easily exploitable weaknesses, mentally tough as nails, fast as lightning and with a nice contrast in styles. What more can you ask for?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

The year they tunred 21:


'07 Nadal: Grand Slams: AO(QF), FO(W), W(F), USO(4R) | Masters: IW(W), Miami(QF), Monte Carlo(W), Madrid(F), Rome(W), Canada(SF), Cincinnati(2R), Shanghai(QF), Paris(F) | Titles: 6 | W-L: 70-15 | Year-end ranking: 2
'08 Djokovic: Grand Slams: AO(W), FO(SF), W(2R), USO(SF) | Masters: IW(W), Miami(2R), Monte Carlo(SF), Madrid(SF), Rome(W), Canada(QF), Cincinnati(F), Shanghai(3R), Paris(3R) | Titles: 4 | W-L: 64-17 | Year-end ranking: 3


Verdict/Summary: This season is interesting because Novak enters the race winning a slam of his own and finishing the season with a solid 64-17 amassing 2 masters in the process also. But Nadal does slightly better with same slam-masters count but with mpre titles

I love the total ignoring of the fact that Djokovic won the YEC, a bigger event than the M1000s.

 

[jackson vile]

Alcaraz is the most talented player in the history of tennis

 

[Gastino]

I love the total ignoring of the fact that Djokovic won the YEC, a bigger event than the M1000s.

I did not ignore Novak's YEC 08 chill I forgot to include it in my comp. Like the 08 OG by Nadal.

It doesn't change the final verdict though overall I'm still taking '24 Carlos' season over 08 Novak. Or are you saying this puts Novak above '24 Carlos ?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Even then Fed's RG19 was pretty good, he's really just an unknown quantity in those years. As has been noted, the most favourable thing for Oldovic against his aged rivals is the lack of bad losses at slams, which tends to make direct comparisons in their average performance levels favourable (though as per with Djoko, less so the peaks).

Not much in it against Federer until you get to very old ages, really. Compare Fed 2011-17 vs Joe 2017-23:
AO: Fed 1 poor loss (2015), Joe 2 (2017, 18)
RG: Fed 2 poor losses (2013, 2014), Joe 2 (2017, 18); Fed though also 2 DNP (2016, 17) so Joe wins
WB: Fed 1 or 2 poor losses (2013, could count 2016 I guess), Joe 1 (2017); Noel didn't get to play 2020 but unlikely to lose anyway
USO: easier to count good performances, both have 2 (Fed 2011, 15; Joe 2018, 23) and the rest is meh (Fed's 'meh' is worth a bit more though imo)

Djokovic's consistency advantage is really quite thin, basically owing to Fed missing two RGs. Comparing Fed 2018-19 to Joe 2024-25, Djokovic is now clearly more consistent in slams but Fed has the clearly higher peak that got him much closer to winning one in this timeframe against proper competition. Starting from this year Djokovic obviously has full advantage by default since Federer fizzled out at that point.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I did not ignore Novak's YEC 08 chill I forgot to include it in my comp. Like the 08 OG by Nadal.

It doesn't change the final verdict though overall I'm still taking '24 Carlos' season over 08 Novak. Or are you saying this puts Novak above '24 Carlos ?

It's pretty easy to argue Djokovic 08 > Alcaraz 24, no?

Djokovic AO 08 > Alcaraz WB 24
Alcaraz RG 24 > Djokovic RG 08 (I guess)
Djokovic USO 08 > Alcaraz AO 24
Alcaraz USO 24 = Djokovic WB 08 (Joe's perf slightly better but both suck anyway)

Djokovic YEC 08 >> Alcaraz YEC 24

Djokovic Olympics 08 > Alcaraz Olympics 24

Concerning masters events, Alcaraz '24 won IW nicely but was pedestrian afterwards (best result = 3 QFs, no great matches). Djokovic 08 won IW and Rome (though the latter draw was lol), lost Cincy F in two TB to Murray after beating Nadal, lost MC SF to Federer (easily/retired) and Hamburg SF to Nadal (tough match). Djokovic obviously superior.

Smaller titles: Alcaraz 24 won Beijing over Sinner and that's it, no other good performances. Djokovic 08 actually didn't have a small title: lost Queen's F to Nadal, Bangkok F to Tsonga, Dubai SF to Roddick. You could say edge Alcaraz but there's little in it.

 

[Jav]

Are you saying either of the '23 finalists would have any chance against '08 Fred? if so.

Yes, elite players do have real chances against each other.

Quite illustrative that you put extra emphasis on Kecmanovic but not Gasquet.

I respect Gasquet

Federer > all of the other mugs combined

something you don't do with other players. Was just pointing out that Kecmanovic overperformed same round Gaudio underperformed greatly.

(i.e. it is more difficult to beat 2007 MC Federer alone than it is to beat KK+Draper+Mugset+Sinflop of Rome 2025)

Clay Fed is not the ultimate player you think he is and that goes beyond claydal.

Would be useful to check your own bias as well, no?

I have my own for sure, you should expose them.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes, elite players do have real chances against each other.

Old hoarding and prime grassgoating are rather different levels of 'elite'.

I respect Gasquet, was just pointing out that Kecmanovic overperformed same round Gaudio underperformed greatly.

If anything, Gasquet was Nadal's best opponent by level, should've singled him out then.

Clay Fed is not the ultimate player you think he is and that goes beyond claydal.

There is no 'ultimativity' required for the plain observation that those folks other than Sinner are useless compared to actual prime Fred, even on clay. Sinner could've played better but didn't.

I have my own for sure, you should expose them.

Doesn't look like you're keen on being exposed.

 

[Jav]

Old hoarding and prime grassgoating are rather different levels of 'elite'.

That's quite an arbitrary description of Nole's dominance that season.

In reality I don't see Fed's level in 2019 on grass that far off from 2008 and neither Nole's from 2023. A notch below as I stated before.

If anything, Gasquet was Nadal's best opponent by level, should've singled him out then.

Ok... When you stop calling mug your average top 10 player of today. Talking about biases.

There is no 'ultimativity' required for the plain observation that those folks other than Sinner are useless compared to actual prime Fred, even on clay. Sinner could've played better but didn't.

Sure, but the cummulative effect of gatekeeper competition is one of the most important differences you guys make out from prime Big 3 era. That is, your Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Berdych, Ferrer who seem to be lacking today. Otherwise not even Big 3 overlapped their primes that much apart from two at a time, bar maybe early Fedal. Not more than Sincaraz who are going for their 10th consecutive slam. And I think they'll break Fedal record this year.

Doesn't look like you're keen on being exposed.

I'm perfectly fine with discussing here. You'll rarely see me going ad hom

 

[Giocoswitch]

Not much in it against Federer until you get to very old ages, really. Compare Fed 2011-17 vs Joe 2017-23:
AO: Fed 1 poor loss (2015), Joe 2 (2017, 18)
RG: Fed 2 poor losses (2013, 2014), Joe 2 (2017, 18); Fed though also 2 DNP (2016, 17) so Joe wins
WB: Fed 1 or 2 poor losses (2013, could count 2016 I guess), Joe 1 (2017); Noel didn't get to play 2020 but unlikely to lose anyway
USO: easier to count good performances, both have 2 (Fed 2011, 15; Joe 2018, 23) and the rest is meh (Fed's 'meh' is worth a bit more though imo)

Agree with basically all of this, personally I'd be very tempted to add WB11 for Fed just with the context but based on prospects going into the match this is about right. Djoko maybe a bit more consistent overall as well for his bad results being limited to a two year stretch, but when you compare like for like there's indeed not much in it consistency wise after 30 (compared to their peak levels in that period certainly).

Djokovic's consistency advantage is really quite thin, basically owing to Fed missing two RGs. Comparing Fed 2018-19 to Joe 2024-25, Djokovic is now clearly more consistent in slams but Fed has the clearly higher peak that got him much closer to winning one in this timeframe against proper competition. Starting from this year Djokovic obviously has full advantage by default since Federer fizzled out at that point.

 

[Gastino]

It's pretty easy to argue Djokovic 08 > Alcaraz 24, no?

Djokovic AO 08 > Alcaraz WB 24
Alcaraz RG 24 > Djokovic RG 08 (I guess)
Djokovic USO 08 > Alcaraz AO 24
Alcaraz USO 24 = Djokovic WB 08 (Joe's perf slightly better but both suck anyway)

Djokovic YEC 08 >> Alcaraz YEC 24

Djokovic Olympics 08 > Alcaraz Olympics 24

Concerning masters events, Alcaraz '24 won IW nicely but was pedestrian afterwards (best result = 3 QFs, no great matches). Djokovic 08 won IW and Rome (though the latter draw was lol), lost Cincy F in two TB to Murray after beating Nadal, lost MC SF to Federer (easily/retired) and Hamburg SF to Nadal (tough match). Djokovic obviously superior.

Smaller titles: Alcaraz 24 won Beijing over Sinner and that's it, no other good performances. Djokovic 08 actually didn't have a small title: lost Queen's F to Nadal, Bangkok F to Tsonga, Dubai SF to Roddick. You could say edge Alcaraz but there's little in it.

I'm not down with your format

AO 08 : Novak
RG 24: Carlos
Wimb: Carlos
USO: Novak

Olypmics : Tie
YEC : Novak +++

masters : Novak

overall record : 64-17 79%win vs. 54-13 81%win narrow win for carlos here. I'm taking the year with 2 slams over the year with 1 slam + YEC ...overall the record is similar , Novak ate a whole 17 defeats that year.

 

[Gastino]

That's quite an arbitrary description of Nole's dominance that season.

In reality I don't see Fed's level in 2019 on grass that far off from 2008 and neither Nole's from 2023. A notch below as I stated before.



Ok... When you stop calling mug your average top 10 player of today. Talking about biases.



Sure, but the cummulative effect of gatekeeper competition is one of the most important differences you guys make out from prime Big 3 era. That is, your Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Berdych, Ferrer who seem to be lacking today. Otherwise not even Big 3 overlapped their primes that much apart from two at a time. Definitely not more than Sincaraz who are going for their 10th consecutive slam.



I'm perfectly fine with discussing here. You'll rarely see me going ad hom

great points ! and I just want to add that overall today the berych's and ferrer's of this world are overrated in the impact they had on their era, Especially ferrer who maximized his talents but was not a real threat on the biggest stages , he's the original poster boy for elo having been very regular a the top but only managing to win a measly 1 masters 1000 during his whole career. The depth of the 2010's is real but is overblown in today's discussions , as if berdych was taking slams away from sincaraz if he was here.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Oldovic's great advantage over Aulderer is on clay, where Fred really didn't do much after 2012. Elsewhere it's either close or Federer clearly ahead.

Where is ******* clearly ahead of Oldovic outside clay??

At the AO, Djokovic has either won the title or lost to Sincaraz. He beat BOTH Sincaraz at the AO. Federer won the title a couple of times, but lost to Tsitsipas or Seppi, aside from losing to Djokovic or Nadal. Federer had defeats to non-ATG aside from his title wins, while not the case for Djokovic. In terms of wins, Federer's most impressive ones are against Nadal in 2017, Wawrinka in 2017 or Murray in 2014. While Djokovic beat Alcaraz in 2025 and Sinner in 2026, Zverev + Medvedev in 2021.

At Wimbledon, Federer won the title or lost to Djokovic pretty much (I don't count the Hurcakz one for obvious reasons) + the defeats to Anderson and Raonic. Djokovic has been winning the title or losing to Sinner and Alcaraz since 2018. Djokovic gets mocked for the guys that he beat to win in 2021 and 2022, Kyrgios, Shapovalov, Berrettini and Sinner. Are Raonic and Anderson so much better than them? Federer came very close to winning in 2019, but Djokovic was also close to winning in 2023. Even if Federer is ahead, it's not "clearly". Federer had an impressive win vs Nadal, while Djokovic lacks huge wins there; maybe the Sinner one in 2023 is the best one.

USO both were a bit more shaky. Djokovic had his worst defeat post-slump, losing to Popyrin, but Federer at the same stage lost to Millman who is worse. Djokovic won in 2023 beating Medvedev and had the DQ and the ban in 2020 and 2022 so the sample is smaller. Made the final but lost easily in 2021. Got injured in 2019 also he wasn't that old yet at the time. In 2024 he lost to Alcaraz. Federer made the final in 2015 where he likely wins without Djokovic around as he beat Wawrinka very comfortably. But also lost to Cilic, Milman, Delpo, Berdych, Dimitrov or didn't play (I don't count Robredo cause he was in as slump). It wasn't always Djokovic stopping him. Post 2011, Federer lost only once to an ATG at the USO (2015), Djokovic also lost to an ATG once late in his career (Alcaraz 2025).

At the YEC, Djokovic won a few titles, beat Sincaraz back-to-back, Federer, even in his best late years like 2017, didn't do much. At the Olympics, Federer skipped it while Djokovic won, beating Alcaraz and didn't drop a set all tournament long. At the M1000 level, to complicated to get into in detail, but I think Djokovic did better, although he did terribly in some of his best events like Indian Wells while Federer won the Sunshine Double in 2017, but I think Djokovic won more and also had some impressive wins (Cinci 2023).

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I did not ignore Novak's YEC 08 chill I forgot to include it in my comp. Like the 08 OG by Nadal.

It doesn't change the final verdict though overall I'm still taking '24 Carlos' season over 08 Novak. Or are you saying this puts Novak above '24 Carlos ?

I'm talking between Nadal and Djokovic. Yes, Alcaraz '24 is ahead of both Djokovic '08 and Nadal '07. Won slams on two different surfaces.

In fact, Nadal '07 you can make case ahead of Djokovic '08 if you want too. I don't think it's clear cut in Djokovic's favor. But you can't ignore Djokovic winning the biggest event outside the slams when both won one slam.

 

[Gastino]

I'm talking between Nadal and Djokovic. Yes, Alcaraz '24 is ahead of both Djokovic '08 and Nadal '07. Won slams on two different surfaces.

In fact, Nadal '07 you can make case ahead of Djokovic '08 if you want too. I don't think it's clear cut in Djokovic's favor. But you can't ignore Djokovic winning the biggest event outside the slams when both won one slam.

I don't have a problem with Novak 08 over Nadal 07 , the point of the whole exercise was to pick a winner by each season. And than have a overall view of the first 5 years at the same age.

As I said it was not my intention to ommit the YEC of Novak in 08 , it's an honest mistake like I forgot to include the OG for Nadal in 08.

 

[Jav]

great points ! and I just want to add that overall today the berych's and ferrer's of this world are overrated in the impact they had on their era, Especially ferrer who maximized his talents but was not a real threat on the biggest stages , he's the original poster boy for elo having been very regular a the top but only managing to win a measly 1 masters 1000 during his whole career. The depth of the 2010's is real but is overblown in today's discussions , as if berdych was taking slams away from sincaraz if he was here.

Problem with these kind of discussions is that they're circular (apart from cherry-picked). Sometimes we value depth of competition, but not that of, say, top 100. Just top 20 or top 10 or even "top 10-3". Sometimes we rate how dominating prime Big 3 got. But you can't get highly rated gatekeepers without some ocassional upsets (definitely not that of Ferrer's as you said, especially not on his 0-17 Vs Roger) and you can't get highly dominant #1s with that neither. We can't have it both ways, and one factor that explains early Fed dominance is honestly that early level of competition which, by most objective metrics (as limited as they are), is poorer than the one Raz has faced since his breakthrough. But that's a sacrilege and a personal attack for some. Like we were the ones who started that discussion.

 

[DSH]

Is it not more sensible to weigh the events (and competition therein) they were good in more heavily?

Obviously just talking numbers…they’re about even. But one needn’t do a deep-dive to determine that, it’s always a Wiki perusal away.



It’s not even the benefit of the doubt it’s more like “neither result matters because the ‘winning’ player was never gonna…win anything.”

Winning two rounds doesn’t change much, so a tiny competition difference is irrelevant compared to a bigger one in later rounds which might actually swing tournament outcomes, no?





Alcaraz was in better form, sure,but isn’t that a separate matter?


Confused, do you think the chasmal difference between peak Federer and Noservkovic is made up in the aggregate?



Has to be a misunderstanding.

How on earth can we give Carlos’ opponents the edge here? ‘07 Wimby was a brutal draw and Federer was Federer, played a great match and one of highest quality important 5th sets of all time.

Water we even dune?






Put either of them in front of Nadal and it looks closer to the ‘08 Semi. Don’t think the best single-surface player at his peak pulverizing Djokerer merits a penalty just because it was anticlimactic.



Did either Sinner or Djokovic produce form as good as Murray’s? Maybe them combined brings it level.

Furthermore, Nadal arrived exhausted at the 2008 US Open after winning Olympic gold in Beijing.

 

[Gastino]

Furthermore, Nadal arrived exhausted at the 2008 US Open after winning Olympic gold in Beijing.

yeah same as carlos in 24 and novak and every player who went deep into the Olympics and the whole summer. You always have freak results in an Olympic year.

 

[Gastino]

Problem with these kind of discussions is that they're circular (apart from cherry-picked). Sometimes we value depth of competition, but not that of, say, top 100. Just top 20 or top 10 or even "top 10-3". Sometimes we rate how dominating prime Big 3 got. But you can't get highly rated gatekeepers without some ocassional upsets (definitely not that of Ferrer's as you said, especially not on his 0-17 Vs Roger) and you can't get highly dominant #1s with that neither. We can't have it both ways, and one factor that explains early Fed dominance is honestly that early level of competition which, by most objective metrics (as limited as they are), is poorer than the one Raz has faced since his breakthrough. But that's a sacrilege and a personal attack for some. Like we were the ones who started that discussion.

I will not shy away from pointing out EVERY SINGLE irregularity in these type of comps. Truth is when you carve out a cherry picked narrative as you say against an era or a player to bring them down , there's always a reverse argument that destroys that narrative.

 

[DSH]

yeah same as carlos in 24 and novak and every player who went deep into the Olympics and the whole summer. You always have freak results in an Olympic year.

Nadal was 22 years old and already in his prime on hard courts and reached the semifinals against one of Murray's best versions at the US Open.
Alcaraz was 21 years old and had not yet begun his prime on hard courts, but he lost badly to VDS in the second round of that season's US Open.

 

[Gastino]

Nadal was 22 years old and already in his prime on hard courts and reached the semifinals against one of Murray's best versions at the US Open.
Alcaraz was 21 years old and had not yet begun his prime on hard courts, but he lost badly to VDS in the second round of that season's US Open.

sure alcaraz' loss is way worse but the point was about overall exhaustion during Olympic years.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That's quite an arbitrary description of Nole's dominance that season.

In reality I don't see Fed's level in 2019 on grass that far off from 2008 and neither Nole's from 2023. A notch below as I stated before.

That's ridiculous. It's not how anything works. Someone like old Fred may still be good but he's got nothing on actual peak/prime Fred when it matters most. Believing that 2019 Federer could have any remotely realistic chance against prime Federer at Wimbledon betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of tennis, period. You should really review your whole thinking if that's the kind of stuff it leads to.

Ok... When you stop calling mug your average top 10 player of today. Talking about biases.

Gasquet had more ability than most of them...

Sure, but the cummulative effect of gatekeeper competition is one of the most important differences you guys make out from prime Big 3 era. That is, your Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Berdych, Ferrer who seem to be lacking today. Otherwise not even Big 3 overlapped their primes that much apart from two at a time, bar maybe early Fedal. Not more than Sincaraz who are going for their 10th consecutive slam. And I think they'll break Fedal record this year.

Hahach, Draper, Mugset are not strong enough to qualify as significant 'gatekeeper competition' that could actually drain Ned. I doubt that Nadal would've had meaningfully more trouble with any of them than he had with Berdych, which is quite little. That leaves just Sinner, who I think performed worse than Federer in their respective matches.

I'm perfectly fine with discussing here. You'll rarely see me going ad hom

It's good that you're nominally nice since some others are not even that, but some of the stuff you say is pretty krap, sad but true.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm not down with your format

AO 08 : Novak
RG 24: Carlos
Wimb: Carlos
USO: Novak

Olypmics : Tie
YEC : Novak +++

masters : Novak

overall record : 64-17 79%win vs. 54-13 81%win narrow win for carlos here. I'm taking the year with 2 slams over the year with 1 slam + YEC ...overall the record is similar , Novak ate a whole 17 defeats that year.

Results-based analysis = fail. Djokovic played at a higher level overall, that's the point.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Where is ******* clearly ahead of Oldovic outside clay??

At the AO, Djokovic has either won the title or lost to Sincaraz. He beat BOTH Sincaraz at the AO. Federer won the title a couple of times, but lost to Tsitsipas or Seppi, aside from losing to Djokovic or Nadal. Federer had defeats to non-ATG aside from his title wins, while not the case for Djokovic. In terms of wins, Federer's most impressive ones are against Nadal in 2017, Wawrinka in 2017 or Murray in 2014. While Djokovic beat Alcaraz in 2025 and Sinner in 2026, Zverev + Medvedev in 2021.

At Wimbledon, Federer won the title or lost to Djokovic pretty much (I don't count the Hurcakz one for obvious reasons) + the defeats to Anderson and Raonic. Djokovic has been winning the title or losing to Sinner and Alcaraz since 2018. Djokovic gets mocked for the guys that he beat to win in 2021 and 2022, Kyrgios, Shapovalov, Berrettini and Sinner. Are Raonic and Anderson so much better than them? Federer came very close to winning in 2019, but Djokovic was also close to winning in 2023. Even if Federer is ahead, it's not "clearly". Federer had an impressive win vs Nadal, while Djokovic lacks huge wins there; maybe the Sinner one in 2023 is the best one.

USO both were a bit more shaky. Djokovic had his worst defeat post-slump, losing to Popyrin, but Federer at the same stage lost to Millman who is worse. Djokovic won in 2023 beating Medvedev and had the DQ and the ban in 2020 and 2022 so the sample is smaller. Made the final but lost easily in 2021. Got injured in 2019 also he wasn't that old yet at the time. In 2024 he lost to Alcaraz. Federer made the final in 2015 where he likely wins without Djokovic around as he beat Wawrinka very comfortably. But also lost to Cilic, Milman, Delpo, Berdych, Dimitrov or didn't play (I don't count Robredo cause he was in as slump). It wasn't always Djokovic stopping him. Post 2011, Federer lost only once to an ATG at the USO (2015), Djokovic also lost to an ATG once late in his career (Alcaraz 2025).

At the YEC, Djokovic won a few titles, beat Sincaraz back-to-back, Federer, even in his best late years like 2017, didn't do much. At the Olympics, Federer skipped it while Djokovic won, beating Alcaraz and didn't drop a set all tournament long. At the M1000 level, to complicated to get into in detail, but I think Djokovic did better, although he did terribly in some of his best events like Indian Wells while Federer won the Sunshine Double in 2017, but I think Djokovic won more and also had some impressive wins (Cinci 2023).

I wasn't thinking of 2026 onwards, as that's where the comparison ends since Federer got terminally injured at AO '20 so any decent performance is advantage Djokovic at this point on.

2011-19 Federer and 2017-25 Djokovic are quite close in terms of level displayed at the AO. Obviously Djokovic faced much softer competition, hence the title count difference; I think 2011-14/16-18 Federer is a massive favourite against anyone Djokovic faced in 2017-25 except 2024 Sinner who Federer would still be clearly favoured to beat in most runs. Djokovic has the best individual run in 2019, but one more weak loss (2017/18 vs 2015); I won't count 2022 against him since I think the ban was unfair, if Djokovic is allowed to play he probably performs at a similar level to his other runs at the time (2020/21/23) and wins accordingly.

Wimbledon, comparing 2011-19 Fed vs 2017-25 Djok Fed's level looks clearly better in general even if not overwhelmingly so. Removing the three weak performances for either (2013/16/18 for Federer, 2017/24/25 for Djokovic - note that Fed's 2016 is the best of these), I'd say Fed's 2012/17 are the best of them all and 2011/15 the second best behind also Djo's 2018. The weakest of Fed's runs in 2014/19 would still win 2021/22 quite comfortably in Joe's place, maybe 2023 too. Grass comp has been in total shambles, so no wonder.

USO, both had two strong runs in their respective timeframes, I don't think Fed's are any worse - in fact, probably better - because he had to face peak Djokovic himself and thus didn't win. The rest is quite mediocre for both, no point to quibbling who's got the slight advantage there since those runs combined have little worth compared to the two top runs for either player.

YEC, comparing their best runs, I guess 2011/12/13/15 for Federer vs 2018/21/22/23 for Djokovic, I don't see much difference, maybe slight advantage for Djokovic overall - but Fed's other runs (2014/17/18/19) are worth a bit more in totality than Djokovic's 2019/20 (with Djokovic also electing to skip the last two YECs because he can't be arsed), so it's kind of a wash.

As for masters events, a detailed comparison would take some longer time but even without adjusting for competition Aulderer actually won more than Oldervic (11 to 10), though coweed and bans didn't help for the latter. Federer should be ahead here too. And he's obviously ahead in smaller titles, having played them a lot more in his 30s (21 to 11 titles).

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Djokofanbois won't like it for sure. You understand you'll find Fedfan support though as we're perfectly content to dunk on 2010s.

LOL

 

[Jav]

That's ridiculous. It's not how anything works. Someone like old Fred may still be good but he's got nothing on actual peak/prime Fred when it matters most. Believing that 2019 Federer could have any remotely realistic chance against prime Federer at Wimbledon betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of tennis, period. You should really review your whole thinking if that's the kind of stuff it leads to.

Is it? I'm still buying that '08 Roger was a better player than his '19 self and so was '19 Nole (at least on that final) than his '23 self. It's just that differences were not that big for each case. Three classics for a reason beyond how you rank them.

I'm no friend of applying general premises to the reasonable rule "a player should play his best or close to it ONLY when on his prime at 22-26" as an absolute, universal truth to all cases. That's kinda fundamentalist and I got eyes.

F.e. I think Rafa played exceptionally well on that RG 2017 F and certainly close, even if trailing a little bit, to his '08 run.

Gasquet had more ability than most of them...

Depends on how you rate "ability". Raw technique then so does Grigor, though Musetti is up there as well. Take into account physique, especially conditioning and they both suddenly fall dramatically. As far of a mockery you want to make out of players like Musetti, Sascha, Rublev, Fritz, Shelton, Draper, De Minaur, Med, they're all decent players. With others like Mensik or Tien coming strong too. Maybe not on your strongest average top 10-20 of the century but still top 30 players easily on almost any other era, it's no Challengers (and I'll stop you there before you try to push one or two of them out of top 30 ATP in a particular week of 2011, that's the absolute exception). With Oldovic too, especially in 2023 and Sinner since then leaving almost no vacuum for Raz to exploit at all, especially on GS, not for even half a year. There's easily been cleaner paths to glory, just have to look at periods of at least 6 months where no two ATG overlapped.

Hahach, Draper, Mugset are not strong enough to qualify as significant 'gatekeeper competition' that could actually drain Ned. I doubt that Nadal would've had meaningfully more trouble with any of them than he had with Berdych, which is quite little. That leaves just Sinner, who I think performed worse than Federer in their respective matches.

Maybe not just yet. But in retrospective that may very well be the case. They're both as young as Jannik.

No one gave two cents for Wawrinka upsetting the Big 3 any time in his career back in 2010. Now he's always named among Big 3 greatest rivals. He was 28 the first time he won a slam. Murray and Cilic were both 25.

About Sinner, he was leading to the final with some bloodbaths on previous rounds, Raz came up just unplayable that game. And he simply made a more clutch job than, say, back in Beijing. Anytime Raz gets more clutch their h2h and scoreline gets pretty unbalanced. Jannik needs more things going his way in comparison.

See this:

And something that is ignored by many is that, even if Raz is known to have edged him in the most crutial moments this year like deciding TBs, it's Jannik who's usually much more efficient at converting BPs in their encounters. These points which win you sets and create momentum (...)
Only time Jannik got the "short end of the stick", and probably his largest beating by Raz while completely fit (at least as scoreline goes) came at Rome (2/2 - 1/3). Here's the h2h from Raz' side, same as you passed from Sinner's but reversed. I invite you to check this stat for previous tourneys, it holds hilariously true for most of them.

Still, perfectly fine with Fed >, but even him along with Berdych doesn't make up for the difference in that particular case imo

 

[SeeItHitIt]

Carlos is all that. Playing at his peak, which appears to be almost always, is GOAT level.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer was nowhere near the player he was in noughties in the 10's. There is a reason Nadal has stated Federer was his greatest rival (i.e best he ever played). He played the best of Federer in noughties

I don't think Nadal was being honest with himself. Federer dealt him two great losses: '07 WB and '17 AO.

Whereas Djokovic has dealt him many great losses. These were his great losses to Djokovic: '12 AO, '21 RG, '11 and '18 WB, and '11 US.

 

[Racquet_smash]

The recency bias brigade is infecting this forum

Sad to see

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Is it? I'm still buying that '08 Roger was a better player than his '19 self and so was '19 Nole (at least on that final) than his '23 self. It's just that differences were not that big for each case. Three classics for a reason beyond how you rank them.

I'm no friend of applying general premises to the reasonable rule "a player should play his best or close to it ONLY when on his prime at 22-26" as an absolute, universal truth to all cases. That's kinda fundamentalist and I got eyes.

F.e. I think Rafa played exceptionally well on that RG 2017 F and certainly close, even if trailing a little bit, to his '08 run.

Yes, it is - no way around it. It's not that the older past-prime player can't compete with his younger prime self at all, but the level range at which the older player operates is lower, so when his prime self is performing at a top level, the level displayed is simply beyond anything the older self can conjure. 08-09 Fred wasn't as good as a couple years before at his absolute peak, but still played at a strong top level, which was well superior to anything Aulderer could manage, so there's absolutely no chance for the upset.
2017 RGdal was very strong and could tussle with his younger self (no, it wouldn't be that close to 08) but that's one exception and he was 30/31, not 33+. 2018-20 RGdals are certainly not close to that level despite still being dominant (which is hardly surprising given that a declined RGdal is still quite strong relative to the field, doubly enhanced by the field being quite weak at the time).

Depends on how you rate "ability". Raw technique then so does Grigor, though Musetti is up there as well. Take into account physique, especially conditioning and they both suddenly fall dramatically. As far of a mockery you want to make out of players like Musetti, Sascha, Rublev, Fritz, Shelton, Draper, De Minaur, Med, they're all decent players. With others like Mensik or Tien coming strong too. Maybe not on your strongest average top 10-20 of the century but still top 30 players easily on almost any other era, it's no Challengers (and I'll stop you there before you try to push one or two of them out of top 30 ATP in a particular week of 2011, that's the absolute exception). With Oldovic too, especially in 2023 and Sinner since then leaving almost no vacuum for Raz to exploit at all, especially on GS, not for even half a year. There's easily been cleaner paths to glory, just have to look at periods of at least 6 months where no two ATG overlapped.

I would say Gasquet had more ability than anyone currently ranked below top 4 (Med and Tsits were stronger in their primes, but now both are huge mugs, especially tsit).

Maybe not just yet. But in retrospective that may very well be the case. They're both as young as Jannik.

That's not relevant when we're comparing specific runs and player performance in them.

No one gave two cents for Wawrinka upsetting the Big 3 any time in his career back in 2010. Now he's always named among Big 3 greatest rivals. He was 28 the first time he won a slam. Murray and Cilic were both 25.

Wawrinka is an extreme outlier, the likes of which we may not see again in our lifetimes. Murray became a strong top player in early 20s, winning slams always looked like a matter of time for him. Cilic's came as a surprise, but he had demonstrated a decent peak in his early 20s already - his AO '10 performance was better than anything Musetti, Draper etc have managed so far in their careers.

About Sinner, he was leading to the final with some bloodbaths on previous rounds, Raz came up just unplayable that game. And he simply made a more clutch job than, say, back in Beijing. Anytime Raz gets more clutch their h2h and scoreline gets pretty unbalanced. Jannik needs more things going his way in comparison.

Remember we're discussing the Rome run here, not the RG run. First set was alright but I'm hugely skeptical about Sinner hypothetically pushing Primedal as much, Alcaraz is not as good as Nadal on clay, thanks. The second set was hugely pathetic from Sinner, all his shots went astray starting with the serve (23% 1st serve in, lel). Federer's 07 MC performance looks clearly better in light of that.

Still, perfectly fine with Fed >, but even him along with Berdych doesn't make up for the difference in that particular case imo

You're unfortunately free to believe in all sorts of insensible opinions.