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

[Jav]

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.

Well if we get strict with definitions then there's absolutely nothing '08 Fed could do against '07 Fed, nor '07 Vs. '06, cause he was 1% worse each passing year, and his absolute best is also unreachable to his past selfs, in theory.

Now, did Fed really perform at his absolute best in that Wimb '08 F? I don't think so. In fact I think that made up for a chunk of the scoreline difference with '07. Still one of, if not the best game in History (two different things that is, cause Rafa also had a say).

So in reality it works better with chances, because there's an intrinsic variability to any given game given a player seasonal state of form and his revealed level prior a game is uncertain. '19 Wimbledon F was peaking Aulderer as you like to say, and that's a challenge for any ATG independently from age or form. Now, if that translates to a 5% chance or 30% chance of winning it's up to anybody cause this is not a formal science. But from 15% up I'd consider it "realistic chances"

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.

That's a ~0%, say 1-2% you're talking about. Not realistic at all.

2017 RGdal was very strong and could tussle with his younger self (no, it wouldn't be that close to 08)

Something that is usually overlooked is Big 3 improvement on serve over the years imo (apart from tactics, shot selection, etc)

You're applying your logic only to physicality, which is still the most important aspect of the game but clearly not the only one. The rest of them helped them mask their decline greatly

2017 Rafa was slower, but bulkier, which helped him dictaminate points better. It was another kind of domination.

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).

Well, I wouldn't, in general. Again, mostly depends on your definition of that. If it is "tennis winning capacity" then I don't think so. You're probably taking his prime and not his career average. Otherwise prime Gasquet ain't better than prime Med f.e.

Age for age or prime for prime, that's far from the case

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

I'm just trying to apply some perspective of time. Every player is a mug at the start.

I'm not saying they'll necessarily turn into their equivalents. Only that we ignore that's NOT going to be the case just yet.

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.

Still, no early bloomer at all any of them attending to their whole careers.

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.

That's like saying AO2009F was poor because of that 5th set. Sometimes rival plays a part in your own performance.

I'm pretty tired in general with the whole "Sinner tanked the match, see his 1st%" narrative be it for Rome, USO or whatever.

Did Nadal tank AO '19 as well? Did Nole tank RG '20 or RG '11? I don't think everytime they get outplayed and their stats worsen they're flopping, nor makes them frauds

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

Thanks hehe

 

[Gastino]

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).

I'm sorry but this irks me beyond belief ...the gassing of the likes of gasquet...gasquet is an extreme underachiever or he's totally overrated cause he didn't accomplish what he was suppoosed to accomplish. Barely made top 10 in his career didn't even climb back for the big majority of it he was a top 20 player. Racket skills don't mean **** if you can't convert that to winning , and you seem to look down on winning full stop. Tennis is not ice skating were we give a rating to a player...the winner is the one who gets more points. Context is important but nothing is more impoertant than WINNING. that's why we're discussing big3 - ATG's and not challenger tour players.

I don't give jack **** about "ability" or supposed perceived ability if it doesn't translate to winning. i.e Nick Kyrgios the most gassed man in the history of tennis. Ability is not be all and all - Kyrgios is the proof of that if your mental make up doesn't allow you to bring your "abilites" on tournament to tournament basis , match to match basis ...then you don't matter much ..like gasquet...I'm not having him as a guarantee what so ever to be world n4 that's a joke thing.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well if we get strict with definitions then there's absolutely nothing '08 Fed could do against '07 Fed, nor '07 Vs. '06, cause he was 1% worse each passing year, and his absolute best is also unreachable to his past selfs, in theory.

Now, did Fed really perform at his absolute best in that Wimb '08 F? I don't think so. In fact I think that made up for a chunk of the scoreline difference with '07. Still one of, if not the best game in History (two different things that is, cause Rafa also had a say).

So in reality it works better with chances, because there's an intrinsic variability to any given game given a player seasonal state of form and his revealed level prior a game is uncertain. '19 Wimbledon F was peaking Aulderer as you like to say, and that's a challenge for any ATG independently from age or form. Now, if that translates to a 5% chance or 30% chance of winning it's up to anybody cause this is not a formal science. But from 15% up I'd consider it "realistic chances"

You're being deliberately obtuse with this, no bueno. 08 WB Fed is not as good as 07 WB Fed in general, but it's close enough that 08 has a decent chance against 07 in a hypothetical. 08 and 19 are not close at all; a mediocre performance from 08 clears a top performance from 19 easily, like there's absolutely no way around it whatsoever, anything else is pure delusion. There are levels to this game.

That's a ~0%, say 1-2% you're talking about. Not realistic at all.

Completely realistic, fair and reasonable. You're the one operating on a misconception here, not me.

Something that is usually overlooked is Big 3 improvement on serve over the years imo (apart from tactics, shot selection, etc)

You're applying your logic only to physicality, which is still the most important aspect of the game but clearly not the only one. The rest of them helped them mask their decline greatly

2017 Rafa was slower, but bulkier, which helped him dictaminate points better. It was another kind of domination.

I agreed 2017dal could fight his prime selves well, perhaps beat some weaker ones. 2018+, nope don't think so.

Well, I wouldn't, in general. Again, mostly depends on your definition of that. If it is "tennis winning capacity" then I don't think so. You're probably taking his prime and not his career average. Otherwise prime Gasquet ain't better than prime Med f.e.

Age for age or prime for prime, that's far from the case

I did say prime Med and Tsit were (obviously) better but not current ones.

Still, no early bloomer at all any of them attending at their whole careers.

I suspect Musetti and Draper fundamentally lack the physicality to win a slam unless the draw is super weak. We'll see though.

That's like saying AO2009F was poor because of that 5th set. Sometimes rival plays a part in your own performance.

I'm pretty tired in general with the whole "Sinner tanked the match, see his 1st%" narrative be it for Rome, USO or whatever.

4 great sets + 1 weak set >>> 1 good set + 1 weak set

Did Nadal tank AO '19 as well? Did Nole tank RG '20 or RG '11? I don't think everytime they get outplayed and their stats worsen they're flopping, nor makes them frauds

Obviously the winners of those matches were made to look better than they really were thanks to the losers' ineptitude. Both were strong performances but I don't think they were actually near the winners' career best, which is a common notion among the clueless who only look at names and scorelines.

Thanks hehe

You're welcome, lol.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm sorry but this irks me beyond belief ...the gassing of the likes of gasquet...gasquet is an extreme underachiever or he's totally overrated cause he didn't accomplish what he was suppoosed to accomplish. Barely made top 10 in his career didn't even climb back for the big majority of it he was a top 20 player. Racket skills don't mean **** if you can't convert that to winning , and you seem to look down on winning full stop. Tennis is not ice skating were we give a rating to a player...the winner is the one who gets more points. Context is important but nothing is more impoertant than WINNING. that's why we're discussing big3 - ATG's and not challenger tour players.

Gasquet is mid compared to top, like a fourth tier player. At least I think he had the higher peak compared to Fritz, Musetti, ADM etc. Maybe not as consistent but would've been overall on their level when healthy.

I don't give jack **** about "ability" or supposed perceived ability if it doesn't translate to winning. i.e Nick Kyrgios the most gassed man in the history of tennis. Ability is not be all and all - Kyrgios is the proof of that if your mental make up doesn't allow you to bring your "abilites" on tournament to tournament basis , match to match basis ...then you don't matter much ..like gasquet...I'm not having him as a guarantee what so ever to be world n4 that's a joke thing.

Kyrgios's ability was greatly overrated; essentially he's always been a servebot pusher/junkballer, who could sometimes upset top players on the strength of that, but when the stakes got high and his serve was returned, he would falter because he's also mentally weak. Isner was a better player with a bigger game who didn't get 1/10 of Nick's praise 'cause he wasn't flashy.

 

[Jav]

You're being deliberately obtuse with this, no bueno. 08 WB Fed is not as good as 07 WB Fed in general, but it's close enough that 08 has a decent chance against 07 in a hypothetical. 08 and 19 are not close at all; a mediocre performance from 08 clears a top performance from 19 easily, like there's absolutely no way around it whatsoever, anything else is pure delusion. There are levels to this game.

And there are levels to an underdog.

Completely realistic, fair and reasonable. You're the one operating on a misconception here, not me.

I don't think you know what you're saying. You're not familiar with odds or your use of language is far off.

1-2% chance is Roger Federer vs. Marcus Willis - #772 (Wimbledon 2016, R2), Novak Djokovic vs. Jacob Fearnley - U-league (Wimbledon 2024, R2) or Rafael Nadal vs. Quentin Halys - wildcard (Roland Garros 2015, R1) levels

I agreed 2017dal could fight his prime selves well, perhaps beat some weaker ones. 2018+, nope don't think so.

It was just an example.

I did say prime Med and Tsit were (obviously) better but not current ones.

Current ones are not worse than average Gasquet.

And I didn't even name Stéfanos precisely cause of his current level.

I suspect Musetti and Draper fundamentally lack the physicality to win a slam unless the draw is super weak. We'll see though.

Agree, that could be a problem. They got the tools to eventually snatch at least one imo though

4 great sets + 1 weak set >>> 1 good set + 1 weak set

Sure, not as representative, but the underlying point still stands.

Obviously the winners of those matches were made to look better than they really were thanks to the losers' ineptitude. Both were strong performances but I don't think they were actually near the winners' career best, which is a common notion among the clueless who only look at names and scorelines.

In tennis as in everything it's a bit of everything. But you focused it on Sinner's ineptitude and completely dismissed Raz level cause "he's not as good as claydal to start with", as if that was a great, useful standard or metric.

"Nole tanked hard in RG '11 because Roger was never as good as Rafa as seen later in the final".

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And there are levels to an underdog.

I don't think you know what you're saying. You're not familiar with odds or your use of language is far off.

1-2% chance is Roger Federer vs. Marcus Willis - #772 (Wimbledon 2016, R2), Novak Djokovic vs. Jacob Fearnley - U-league (Wimbledon 2024, R2) or Rafael Nadal vs. Quentin Halys - wildcard (Roland Garros 2015, R1) levels

You clearly don't understand; those are bookie odds, tweaked for profit + injury probability. We're talking about actual chances (sans stuff like freak injuries). Player A having zero chances against player B who has zero chances against player C etc. is exactly how it works when the level differential is high enough. Marcus Willis has no chance against, say, 2011 Wimbledon Youzhny who has no chance against 2019 Wimbledon Federer who has no chance against 2008 Wimbledon Federer. How could this be hard to grasp?

Agree, that could be a problem. They got the tools to eventually snatch at least one imo though

The tools of getting injured in a winning position, sure.

In tennis as in everything it's a bit of everything. But you focused it on Sinner's ineptitude and completely dismissed Raz level cause "he's not as good as claydal to start with", as if that was a great, useful standard or metric.

"Nole tanked hard in RG '11 because Roger was never as good as Rafa as seen later in the final".

Dismissed where? I said 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Sinner and everyone else in Alcaraz's path, basically everyone who didn't win i.e. other than Alcaraz himself. Federer vs Alcaraz isn't that obvious, although as of yet I continue to lean Federer by default until Alcaraz shows a more stable/mature game where he doesn't need to save himself on the brink of losing every other tournament.

 

[MichaelNadal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030986344517038571

 

[Jav]

You clearly don't understand; those are bookie odds, tweaked for profit + injury probability. We're talking about actual chances (sans stuff like freak injuries). Player A having zero chances against player B who has zero chances against player C etc. is exactly how it works when the level differential is high enough. Marcus Willis has no chance against, say, 2011 Wimbledon Youzhny who has no chance against 2019 Wimbledon Federer who has no chance against 2008 Wimbledon Federer. How could this be hard to grasp?

Well:

• Chances are best expressed as statistical odds (yours is the arbitrary interpretation and we're not seers)
• Best odds are bookie odds (it's the market: you either profit if you think it's screwed or lose money if you're off)
• Some houses don't even pay if there's been less than one set played (say, Cinci '25)
• Most injuries occur when you're playing a peer, the match extends so there's bigger possibility to rain delay and getting cold, cramps etc
• If anything it's 2019 Roger the one with more risk of injury

But hey, taking a 2% chance of injury. Here's some 4% chance of winning:

• Novak Djokovic vs. Dino Prizmic - Qualy (AO 2024)
• Roger Federer vs. Sumit Nagal - #190 (USO 2019)
• Rafael Nadal vs. Yannick Hanfmann - out of top 100 (AO 2022)
• Carlos Alcaraz vs. J.J. Wolf (RG 2024)
• Carlos Alcaraz vs. Li Tu - came back from retirement (US Open 2024)

Problem here is I need to get literal for you to realize how far off you're with your wording ("no chances"), even by using your internal set of criteria.

Maybe you should back off and admit we're not seers and can't get your perception of a greyscale if you're not precise enough. And acknowledge "no chance" may get missed by a person with a complete different position than yours, same way as if I said Gasquet was a mug (won't see me doing that). Hence why I talk about biases, subjectivism and so on.

The tools of getting injured in a winning position, sure.

Jokes aside, that last AO '26 performance Vs. Nole should still tell you something. But also Draper vs Raz in '24 Queens or last IW.

I mean as fragile as they seem you just don't break on every single ocassion. We'll see, I guess. Ofc it's not only them: Tien, Mensik, Fils, Shelton, FAA... so who knows.

Dismissed where?

Well, apart from down below that same paragraph, in your previous reply:

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

What I get from this is that no one ever had the moral right to legitimately lose on clay to a lesser opponent than claydal.

I said 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Sinner and everyone else in Alcaraz's path, basically everyone who didn't win i.e. other than Alcaraz himself. Federer vs Alcaraz isn't that obvious, although as of yet I continue to lean Federer by default until Alcaraz shows a more stable/mature game where he doesn't need to save himself on the brink of losing every other tournament.

It's 2026 not 2022.

But hey I guess it would have been better if he actually had lost them and have as many GS as Fedovic at his age. That is, a grand total of 2. Would have been more dominant runs on average for sure. But irl he just vultured his way to a CGS by age 22. Such a fraud.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well:

• Chances are best expressed as statistical odds (yours is the arbitrary interpretation and we're not seers)
• Best odds are bookie odds (it's the market: you either profit if you think it's screwed or lose money if you're off)
• Some houses don't even pay if there's been less than one set played (say, Cinci '25)
• Most injuries occur when you're playing a peer, the match extends so there's bigger possibility to rain delay and getting cold, cramps etc
• If anything it's 2019 Roger the one with more risk of injury

But hey, taking a 2% chance of injury. Here's some 4% chance of winning:

• Novak Djokovic vs. Dino Prizmic - Qualy (AO 2024)
• Roger Federer vs. Sumit Nagal - #190 (USO 2019)
• Rafael Nadal vs. Yannick Hanfmann - out of top 100 (AO 2022)
• Carlos Alcaraz vs. J.J. Wolf (RG 2024)
• Carlos Alcaraz vs. Li Tu - came back from retirement (US Open 2024)

Problem here is I need to get literal for you to realize how far off you're with your wording ("no chances"), even by using your internal set of criteria.

Maybe you should back off and admit we're not seers and can't get your perception of a greyscale if you're not precise enough. And acknowledge "no chance" may get missed by a person with a complete different position than yours, same way as if I said Gasquet was a mug (won't see me doing that). Hence why I talk about biases, subjectivism and so on.

Honestly, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for even considering the ridiculous idea that the actual winning chance for any of those underdogs was anything but absolute zero, again barring freak injuries. Extreme bookie odds do not correspond to reality.

Jokes aside, that last AO '26 performance Vs. Nole should still tell you something. But also Draper vs Raz in '24 Queens or last IW.

It tells me Ancientvic and Alcaraz are inconsistent and can always mug it up, at least for a portion of the match.

I mean as fragile as they seem you just don't break on every single ocassion. We'll see, I guess. Ofc it's not only them: Tien, Mensik, Shelton, FAA... so who knows.

Yeah right.

Well, apart from down below that same paragraph, in your previous reply:
What I get from this is that no one ever had the moral right to legitimately lose on clay to a lesser opponent than claydal.

That's a you problem. I was arguing for 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Sinner (and obviously 2007 MC Nadal > 2025 Rome Alcaraz). As I said, it doesn't necessarily follow that 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Alcaraz, though I would lean that way.

It's 2026 not 2022.

But hey I guess it would have been better if he actually had lost them and have as many GS as Fedovic at his age. That is, a grand total of 2. Would have been more dominant runs on average for sure. But irl he just vultured his way to a CGS by age 22. Such a fraud.

Alcaraz was technically no more than 2 games away from losing at every big tournament he's won, other than the USO, since improving consistency: vs Fils in MC, Hahach in Rome, Sinner at RG, Rublev in Cincinnati, Zverev at the AO. Was never really in a losing position in Rome and Cincinnati, but was in MC (Fils had triple BP to serve for the match at 5-5 2nd set and led 3-1 3rd set by a break), and obviously very much so at RG and AO. So Alcaraz's in-match consistency is not that stupendous yet if he still needs to regularly escape opponents who are much less talented than himself.

 

[Jav]

Honestly, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for even considering the ridiculous idea that the actual winning chance for any of those underdogs was anything but absolute zero, again barring freak injuries. Extreme bookie odds do not correspond to reality.

Dude it's getting ridiculous at this point.

If you think they're broken, profit. It's how the whole thing works.

What's extreme is your pov on chances, don't you think? Now this is purely linguistic, topic aside. If anything bookies are giving them a greater chance hence being less extreme. They may be wrong according to you but they ain't less extreme, the extreme we're talking here is your 0%.

It tells me Ancientvic and Alcaraz are inconsistent and can always mug it up, at least for a portion of the match.

No version of mugging ever existed before Raz first lifted a racket as a pro. That curse magically passed on Nole and Sinner as well.

That's a you problem. I was arguing for 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Sinner (and obviously 2007 MC Nadal > 2025 Rome Alcaraz). As I said, it doesn't necessarily follow that 2007 MC Federer > 2025 Rome Alcaraz, though I would lean that way.

No, this is more your reasoning here.

I didn't even made it about Fed Vs. Raz once there. I was talking about claydal as a standard being an outlier and a bad metric for rival's level comparisons unless they won (Fed ofc didn't).

Alcaraz was technically no more than 2 games away from losing at every big tournament he's won, other than the USO, since improving consistency: vs Fils in MC, Hahach in Rome, Sinner at RG, Rublev in Cincinnati, Zverev at the AO. Was never really in a losing position in Rome and Cincinnati, but was in MC (Fils had triple BP to serve for the match at 5-5 2nd set and led 3-1 3rd set by a break), and obviously very much so at RG and AO. So Alcaraz's in-match consistency is not that stupendous yet if he still needs to regularly escape opponents who are much less talented than himself.

He's been steadily improving. Now, context aside (won't blame him for cramping occasionally and the consequences of that) that's far off from brink of losing every other tournament. But I'm done explaining to you why you're just being extreme on your claims. It's not even a figure of speech at this point, it's an outdated pre-conceived narrative.

31 consecutive Ws on HC. Give me that way of flirting with defeat any given day, if that was really a thing anymore (it's not).

 

[mike danny]

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.

I always believed that the 16 year age gap works both ways in that Djokovic also took advantage of a pre-prime Alcaraz for a while

 

[Zara]

Furthermore, from 2015 onwards, there is an extra week of rest between the end of Roland Garros and the start of Wimbledon, something Nadal would have liked to have at his disposal in his prime, something that Alcaraz has been able to enjoy since the beginning of his career.
Small details that make a big difference.

You are on the right path, dear DSH. Keep’em coming.

 

[Gastino]

Age-18 season(2004 vs 2021) goes to Alcaraz

Age-19 season goes to Nadal(1-1 in slam titles; but 4-2 edge in Masters titles

Age-20 season goes to Alcaraz. Same on slam and Masters titles. But Alcaraz has edge in total titles at 6-5. And he won 6 more matches all year; despite having the same # of losses

Age-21 season: this goes to Alcaraz. 2-1 edge in slam title

Age-22 season: this is extremely close. But I will go with Alcaraz here. They both had 2 slam titles, 3 Masters titles, and 8 titles overall. Alcaraz had 1 extra slam final and a final at the WTF. His winning pct for the year was also a little bit higher. Nadal went to 10 finals in 19 tourneys played(52.6%). Alcaraz went to 11 finals in 16 played(68.8%).

Age-23 season. Nadal won the AO for the first time, but got injured and didn’t win any other majors. However, he won 3 Masters titles and 5 titles overall and finished world #2. Alcaraz is off to a good start with the AO title and 2 titles out of 2 appearances. Alcaraz should be able to win this year. But I won’t count the chickens before they hatch.

Aggregate stats through age-22 season(2008 fo Nadal and 2025 for Alcaraz).

Nadal
335-77, .813 overall
29-13, .690 vs top-5
47-22, .681 vs top-10

Alcaraz
280-65, .812 overall
28-14, .667 vs top-5
52-24, .684 vs top-10

Alcaraz has definitely held his own here. I would actually give him a paper-thin edge so far, as crazy as that sounds. Hopefully, he can keep this up.

We actually agree on every year expect 08/25 where I have it as a tie. Your analysis is fair and the aggregate stats show that they're extremely close with Carlos coming out on the other side with 1 more slam and better slam surface splits all-around.

I didn't include 26/09 because I wanted to make a season by season comparison. Nadal slows down after 09-10, Federer starts his prime in 04, It will be interesting to track Carlos in the race from here on out. He matched young Nadal, can he keep aup pace at least with prime fed ? if he does he will come out with an obscene amount of slams heading into his 30's.

 

[Pheasant]

We actually agree on every year expect 08/25 where I have it as a tie. Your analysis is fair and the aggregate stats show that they're extremely close with Carlos coming out on the other side with 1 more slam and better slam surface splits all-around.

I didn't include 26/09 because I wanted to make a season by season comparison. Nadal slows down after 09-10, Federer starts his prime in 04, It will be interesting to track Carlos in the race from here on out. He matched young Nadal, can he keep aup pace at least with prime fed ? if he does he will come out with an obscene amount of slams heading into his 30's.

We basically agree on them all then. You have 50-50 for 2008/2025. I have 51-49 in favor of Alcaraz. This one was virtually a tie in my book. I don’t do ties. I will always find a tiebreaker; even if it’s something that is extremely trivial.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Dude it's getting ridiculous at this point.

If you think they're broken, profit. It's how the whole thing works.

What's extreme is your pov on chances, don't you think? Now this is purely linguistic, topic aside. If anything bookies are giving them a greater chance hence being less extreme. They may be wrong according to you but they ain't less extreme, the extreme we're talking here is your 0%.

You're the ridiculous one, champ. I meant that bookie odds don't quite reflect the 'real' odds correctly, especially in extreme cases (when the underdog's chances are tiny). Of course such cases are not profitable because you need to bet huge sums to get a good return, and the risk of injury always exists. If it didn't exist, it'd be perfectly safe to bet millions on a player as strong as prime Federer at Wimbledon against anyone but a few players (in Fed's own time, those players were Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt; everyone else had exactly nil chance to beat him at Wimbledon unless he got badly injured/sick).

No, this is more your reasoning here.

I didn't even made it about Fed Vs. Raz once there. I was talking about claydal as a standard being an outlier and a bad metric for rival's level comparisons unless they won (Fed ofc didn't).

You're making negative sense here. So we have an excellent player here in Nadal-on-clay, but no performance against him matters unless you win? All losses are the same? What is this even supposed to mean?

He's been steadily improving. Now, context aside (won't blame him for cramping occasionally and the consequences of that) that's far off from brink of losing every other tournament. But I'm done explaining to you why you're just being extreme on your claims. It's not even a figure of speech at this point, it's an outdated pre-conceived narrative.

31 consecutive Ws on HC. Give me that way of flirting with defeat any given day, if that was really a thing anymore (it's not).

Ooh, look at you go "I'm done", soaring high and mighty. Fact is, Alcaraz came fairly close to losing at every big tournament he's won within the last 1.5 years, with the single exception of the USO, and he was really close to losing at every slam he's won so far other than the last USO and you could say 2024 WB (*4-4 0-30 in 4th set vs Tiafoe was close but arguably not that close yet).

 

[Racquet_smash]

I always believed that the 16 year age gap works both ways in that Djokovic also took advantage of a pre-prime Alcaraz for a while

There is no universe where being 36 is an advantage over being 20.

At 20, a player is at his physical peak, even if they are lacking some experience.

At 36, no amount of experience will make up for sluggish legs.

This especially true here since we are talking about a player that makes of athleticism his trademark.

 

[The Guru]

I always believed that the 16 year age gap works both ways in that Djokovic also took advantage of a pre-prime Alcaraz for a while

Lol biblical levels of greed on display.

 

[mike danny]

Lol biblical levels of greed on display.

Tgis is in response to the Djoko fans who think the bigger the age gap the tougher the opponent on a permanent basis

 

[The Guru]

Tgis is in response to the Djoko fans who think the bigger the age gap the tougher the opponent on a permanent basis

I'm not obsessed with age idgaf about this but it is objectively hilarious to see you say that especially referring to a Carlos older than a lot of the Nadals that you're not allowed to call baby going up against a guy damn near 10 years older than when Federer became a grandpa.

 

[mike danny]

I'm not obsessed with age idgaf about this but it is objectively hilarious to see you say that especially referring to a Carlos older than a lot of the Nadals that you're not allowed to call baby going up against a guy damn near 10 years older than when Federer became a grandpa.

Carlos of the last year or so has been prime. I’m referring to the Carlos before that

 

[The Guru]

Carlos of the last year or so has been prime. I’m referring to the Carlos before that

Right so just after that last loss against Novak. How convenient. It's funny how Novak winning matches against ATGs in his late 30s forces the age merchants into quite the dilemma. Literally getting people to claim Carlos and Sinner are terrible frauds who would be third tier players in any other era just to try to stay consistent with their prior arguments

I'll admit this is a neater solution so long as Novak doesn't score another upset.

 

[Gastino]

There is no universe where being 36 is an advantage over being 20.

At 20, a player is at his physical peak, even if they are lacking some experience.

Why wasn't 20 year old Federer good enough to challenge old Sampras and Agassi ?

 

[Racquet_smash]

Why wasn't 20 year old Federer good enough to challenge old Sampras and Agassi ?

Federer never lost to Agassi from 2003 onwards and he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.

 

[Gastino]

Federer never lost to Agassi from 2003 onwards and he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.

No I didn't ask about 22 years old Federer. You're scrutinizing 20 y.o Carlos. I'm asking why 20 year old federer (2001) wasn't challenging old Agassi/Sampras for majors like Carlos does ?

 

[Giocoswitch]

I always believed that the 16 year age gap works both ways in that Djokovic also took advantage of a pre-prime Alcaraz for a while

To some extent yes, although I don't know if "took advantage" is the way I'd phrase it exactly. Carlos may have levelled up his consistency in the last year but even back in 2023 he would've been YE#1 if Oldvic wasn't perfect in the second half of the year. 2025-26 Alcaraz would surely beat him to it, but that's not to say he was some scrub who couldn't have done it in 2023 if things went just a little differently.

Take Cincy 23 for example. Does it show how pre-prime Alcaraz was that he choked a set and a break lead against 36 year old Djoko? Sure, but by equal measure prime Djoko doesn't gas that horribly and fault three times in a row to get broken in the first place. It's hard for me to be excessively sympathetic when Alcaraz has always had the physical advantage in the matchup at least, but no doubt Djokovic was always the more refined player before 2025.

 

[Racquet_smash]

No I didn't ask about 22 years old Federer. You're scrutinizing 20 y.o Carlos. I'm asking why 20 year old federer (2001) wasn't challenging old Agassi/Sampras for majors like Carlos does ?

Federer repeatedly beat Agassi over and over when Andre was 35 or around there, which is basically the bare minimum age Djokovic was at when he played Alcaraz in 2022-26.

If Federer lost to a 37 years old Andre in huge games like the Olympics final or a Major meeting everyone would have heavily criticized him. But Agassi already was getting smacked around by Fed in 2003 when he was 33.

 

[Gastino]

Federer repeatedly beat Agassi over and over when Andre was 35 or around there, which is basically the bare minimum age Djokovic was at when he played Alcaraz in 2022-26.

If Federer lost to a 37 years old Andre in huge games like the Olympics final or a Major meeting everyone would have heavily criticized him. But Agassi already was getting smacked around by Fed in 2003 when he was 33.

No but you're deliberately are avoiding my question about 20 y.o Federer lol. There's no ifs here, I'm specifically asking why he wasn't challenging the older guard at 20 like carlos.

Carlos btw defeated Novak and Nadal b2b in madrid when he was 18 ...roger wasn't even on the map . The reason you're avoiding the direct comparison between 20yo Carlos and 20yo Federer is simple : he couldn't hold a candle against him.

 

[DSH]

No but you're deliberately are avoiding my question about 20 y.o Federer lol. There's no ifs here, I'm specifically asking why he wasn't challenging the older guard at 20 like carlos.

Carlos btw defeated Novak and Nadal b2b in madrid when he was 18 ...roger wasn't even on the map . The reason you're avoiding the direct comparison between 20yo Carlos and 20yo Federer is simple : he couldn't hold a candle against him.

No, he had already turned 19.

 

[Racquet_smash]

No but you're deliberately are avoiding my question about 20 y.o Federer lol. There's no ifs here, I'm specifically asking why he wasn't challenging the older guard at 20 like carlos.

Carlos btw defeated Novak and Nadal b2b in madrid when he was 18 ...roger wasn't even on the map . The reason you're avoiding the direct comparison between 20yo Carlos and 20yo Federer is simple : he couldn't hold a candle against him.

There is simply no direct comparison you can make, you brought up Sampras and Agassi in the first place, when the age difference between Alcaraz and Djokovic is much greater than the difference between Federer and Agassi/Sampras.

I repeat, if you want to make a closer comparison, just look at years like 2003 or 2004, Federer was still in his early 20s, and Agassi was still quite a bit younger than Djoko was in 2024 or 2025. Fed won every single time.

Alcaraz is a physical player, it's his best weapon, to act like he was disadvantaged at 20/21 vs Djokovic at 36/37 is completely ridiculous.

 

[Gastino]

There is simply no direct comparison you can make, you brought up Sampras and Agassi in the first place, when the age difference between Alcaraz and Djokovic is much greater than the difference between Federer and Agassi/Sampras.

I repeat, if you want to make a closer comparison, just look at years like 2003 or 2004, Federer was still in his early 20s, and Agassi was still quite a bit younger than Djoko was in 2024 or 2025. Fed won every single time.

Alcaraz is a physical player, it's his best weapon, to act like he was disadvantaged at 20/21 vs Djokovic at 36/37 is completely ridiculous.

Then I will give the same benefit of the doubt to carlos as you're giving Federer : judge him on results from the age of 22. Carlos' age right now and disregard anything before .

We also disagree on the strengths of Carlos' game ...I do not believe whatsoever he was as good 2 years go or even 1 year ago. He wasn't in fact as good as he is now - based on recent results and quality of play.

The bottom line is Carlos is a better player than Federer and Novak by quite a margin at 18-22 yo... they took their sweet time to develop.

 

[Gastino]

No, he had already turned 19.

What was roger doing at 19 ?

Edit: you're actually incorrect as well, he turned 19 during madrid 22 (1 − 8 May) Carlos' birthday is the 5th of may

 

[DjokoLand]

The reality is tiny is as good as any of them before and up to the age of 22. Now let’s see how he progresses. The fact the big 3 was so elite is they did it for 15 years.

 

[messiahrobins]

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.

They were insignificant losses as they were semi finals with at the time not a huge amount riding on them legacy wise which of anything outside finals is important.

 

[messiahrobins]

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?

Watch their IW2022 SF..a match for the ages quality wise so imagine how it would be peak v peak.

 

[Jav]

You're the ridiculous one, champ. I meant that bookie odds don't quite reflect the 'real' odds correctly, especially in extreme cases (when the underdog's chances are tiny). Of course such cases are not profitable because you need to bet huge sums to get a good return, and the risk of injury always exists.

If bookies got it at 4% you can perfectly put a bet discounting the ~2% chance of injury if you think that player really got no chance to beat rival in a normal game and end up profiting big from that 2% difference in prize money. Not many investments promise you a cummulative 2% ROI over such a short span. Made numbers and trust me, it's more profitable than any index you can think of. Hence my whole point.

If it didn't exist, it'd be perfectly safe to bet millions on a player as strong as prime Federer at Wimbledon against anyone but a few players (in Fed's own time, those players were Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt; everyone else had exactly nil chance to beat him at Wimbledon unless he got badly injured/sick).

Don't know if you're aware of it but the necessary consequence of your whole reasoning is that you think prime Fed > Nadal (a level above the next two, I guess) > Hewitt/Roddick > Fed 2019 > Novak 2023

Since Novak 2023 is at the very worst an average version of his late, 30s self (when he's won half his GS tally) you're basically saying both Hewitt and Roddick would have vultured the 2017 - 2023 era better than actual Novak ever did (45 Ws streak on Wimbledon center court for almost a decade)

Let's remember when and to whom each of them lost to, apart from Roger:

Andy Roddick:

• 2001 - 3R, Ivanišević
• 2002 - 3R, Rusedski
• (2003 to 2006 - Roger)
• 2006 - 3R, Murray
• 2007 - CF, Gasquet
• 2008 - 2R, Tipsarević
• (2009 - Roger)
• 2010 - 4R, Lu
• 2011 - 3R, López
• 2012 - 3R, Ferrer

Hewitt:

• 1999 - 3R, Becker
• 2000 - 1R, Gambill
• 2001 - 4R, Escudé
• (2002 - W)
• 2003 - 1R, Karlović
• (2004 to 2005 - Federer)
• 2006 - CF, Baghdatis
• 2007 - 4R, Djokovic
• (2008 - Federer)
• 2009 - CF, Roddick
• 2010 - 4R, Djokovic
• 2011 - 2R, Söderling
• 2012 - 1R, Tsonga
• 2013 - 2R, Brown
• 2014 - 2R, Janowicz
• 2015 - 1R, Nieminen

You're making negative sense here. So we have an excellent player here in Nadal-on-clay, but no performance against him matters unless you win? All losses are the same? What is this even supposed to mean?

It's not conclusive at all, I'm sorry.

It's supposed to mean you're using it as a wild card at this point when it's not that telling. And it's kinda a circular argument: "Nadal's rivals were more legit cause Fed put up a decent fight on the final" like Rafa himself wasn't still human and cruising on a final was a certainty 24/7 for him even at age 20

That's all

Ooh, look at you go "I'm done", soaring high and mighty.

Sensing some bitterness there. Want to keep it cordial so I'll get to the point and leave it here in this post.

• Any two top 100 will always have a decent (non-negligible) chance against each other, injuries aside
• Especially among pros, even more so top 5 players on any close "eras"
• Federer was #3 and 2nd seed entering Wimb '19
• Tennis is an individual game of low margins where upsets are perfectly possible
• There are levels to it but they're not unbridgeable gaps (we're talking about a sole game not h2h over the span of a whole season)

Fact is, Alcaraz came fairly close to losing at every big tournament he's won within the last 1.5 years, with the single exception of the USO, and he was really close to losing at every slam he's won so far other than the last USO and you could say 2024 WB (*4-4 0-30 in 4th set vs Tiafoe was close but arguably not that close yet).

You tell me when was he exactly close to losing in Doha, Tokyo or even Queens. Unless you think losing a set occasionally makes up for it, in which case I got news for you: Big 3 weren't invincible either

(It's rethorical, don't need to answer me anymore if you don't want to)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If bookies got it at 4% you can perfectly put a bet discounting the ~2% chance of injury if you think that player really got no chance to beat rival in a normal game and end up profiting big from that 2% difference in prize money. Not many investments promise you a cummulative 2% ROI over such a short span. Made numbers and trust me, it's more profitable than any index you can think of. Hence my whole point.

How is this supposed to work? You can't bet on 'wins if healthy' (retirements may void bets, but not every injury results in retirement). You can only bet on winning in general, and since the return is small you need to bet large sums to win any significant money, and it's certainly unwise to bet large sums when you can lose (injury risk).

Don't know if you're aware of it but the necessary consequence of your whole reasoning is that you think prime Fed > Nadal (a level above the next two, I guess) > Hewitt/Roddick > Fed 2019 > Novak 2023

Since Novak 2023 is at the very worst an average version of his late, 30s self (when he's won half his GS tally) you're basically saying both Hewitt and Roddick would have vultured the 2017 - 2023 era better than actual Novak ever did (45 Ws streak on Wimbledon center court for almost a decade)

Let's remember when and to whom each of them lost to, apart from Roger:

You're being deliberately obtuse again, aren't you? Of course the likes of Roddick and Hewitt weren't strong every single time in their primes, but they could be strong, which you can't dismiss in advance - who knows, you say, maybe this is the time Roddick/Hewitt peaks, and peak Roddick/Hewitt has a non-zero chance, not a great chance but a real one. You can't say this about 2013+ Federer - even if he gives his best he can't overcome his peak self. Which does necessarily imply that peak Roddick/Hewitt > peak 2013+ Federer on grass, which I do consider to be the case. (also > peak 2017+ Djokovic on grass as well, right)

It's not conclusive at all, I'm sorry.

It's supposed to mean you're using it as a wild card at this point when it's not that telling. And it's kinda a circular argument: "Nadal's rivals were more legit cause Fed put up a decent fight on the final" like Rafa himself wasn't still human and cruising on a final was a certainty 24/7 for him even at age 20

That's all

This doesn't seem to mean anything substantial. Be more specific if you wish to put forth a clear argument, por favor.

Sensing some bitterness there. Want to keep it cordial so I'll get to the point and leave it here in this post.

• Any two top 100 will always have a decent (non-negligible) chance against each other, injuries aside
• Especially among pros, even more so top 5 players on any close "eras"
• Federer was #3 and 2nd seed entering Wimb '19
• Tennis is an individual game of low margins where upsets are perfectly possible
• There are levels to it but they're not unbridgeable gaps (we're talking about a sole game not h2h over the span of a whole season)

I insist that the basic premise you claim in statements #1 and #5 is plainly false; unbridgeable gaps exist within top 100, even top 10 sometimes. For a modern example, I would point out to de Minaur vs Sinner/Alcaraz in slams - BO3 is more volatile and he could eventually get a win when they're off, but in slams, where Sinner/Alcaraz seek to bring their best tennis and can be trusted to do so (assuming no more mental failures like USO 24 for Alcaraz), then, unless their fitness fails them badly (injured, sick, Sinner getting cooked in scorched sun...), de Minaur has exactly zero winning chance, none at all, because the best tennis he's capable of is so far off theirs that they can skate by and still win comfortably.

You tell me when was he exactly close to losing in Doha, Tokyo or even Queens. Unless you think losing a set occasionally makes up for it, in which case I got news for you: Big 3 weren't invincible either

(It's rethorical, don't need to answer me anymore if you don't want to)

Those are not big tournaments by the 'official' (ATP-endorsed) definition of that (which is: slams, YEC, masters, maybe olympics).

 

[Jav]

No, he had already turned 19.

And Nole was technically 34 still.

There is simply no direct comparison you can make, you brought up Sampras and Agassi in the first place, when the age difference between Alcaraz and Djokovic is much greater than the difference between Federer and Agassi/Sampras.

Oldovic ain't the same kind of player as old Agassi. Nole was 35-36 in 2023 and he'd give prime Agassi a run for his money. And it was not just Agassi the one against whom 20yo Fed was losing to.

Reality is you're twisting all logic.

Reaching highest stakes on tour as Raz did as early as 2022 is putting yourself in a position to lose it, which feeds our 'loser' or 'underperformer' bias; however, nothing could be further from the truth. Will always be better to lose precociously at the highest stage than never touching it for years.

And that's not even the case fgs. 3-0 in GS finals, including that WB 2023 epic movie. What else do you want.

 

[landcookie]

Alc is a dud. Give him 20 years tops and he’ll stop winning slams.

 

[Jav]

How is this supposed to work? You can't bet on 'wins if healthy' (retirements may void bets, but not every injury results in retirement). You can only bet on winning in general, and since the return is small you need to bet large sums to win any significant money, and it's certainly unwise to bet large sums when you can lose (injury risk).

Imagine bookie odds give players the equivalent chances in money of 97-5, which sums up to 102%. That extra 2% is the house's margin, in reality they think it's a 96-4. A player's risk of injury is around ~2%, which explains only half of the (heavy) underdog winning odds, in theory (reality is even lower cause reasons I exposed before, such as only accepting 1+ sets played), the rest is him winning legit. But you know in reality that player got absolutely no chance, so it's really a 98-2. That's an average ROI of 1% if you bet on the favorite. Any prime ATG plays over 60+ games against heavy underdogs in the course of a season. If you put money in each one of these you should get an annual 80%+ ROI (with a big chance of losing it all though, so realistically a ~15-20% with some flat-betting and you'd still safely be doing better than S&P500).

You're being deliberately obtuse again, aren't you? Of course the likes of Roddick and Hewitt weren't strong every single time in their primes, but they could be strong, which you can't dismiss in advance - who knows, you say, maybe this is the time Roddick/Hewitt peaks, and peak Roddick/Hewitt has a non-zero chance, not a great chance but a real one. You can't say this about 2013+ Federer - even if he gives his best he can't overcome his peak self. Which does necessarily imply that peak Roddick/Hewitt > peak 2013+ Federer on grass, which I do consider to be the case. (also > peak 2017+ Djokovic on grass as well, right)

You know who was certainly strong in our hypothetical matchup? WB 2019 F Roger

This doesn't seem to mean anything substantial. Be more specific if you wish to put forth a clear argument, por favor.

Don't think I can summarize it better. We can leave that there.

I insist that the basic premise you claim in statements #1 and #5 is plainly false; unbridgeable gaps exist within top 100, even top 10 sometimes. For a modern example, I would point out to de Minaur vs Sinner/Alcaraz in slams - BO3 is more volatile and he could eventually get a win when they're off, but in slams, where Sinner/Alcaraz seek to bring their best tennis and can be trusted to do so (assuming no more mental failures like USO 24 for Alcaraz), then, unless their fitness fails them badly (injured, sick, Sinner getting cooked in scorched sun...), de Minaur has exactly zero winning chance, none at all, because the best tennis he's capable of is so far off theirs that they can skate by and still win comfortably.

There's a 0% chance in TTW slang and a very different real 0% chance. You insist on the later and that's factually wrong. It's not rocket science, people put into, win and lose tons of money just on that. If you think betting houses got their odds consistenly wrong you'd not only prove they're losing money on a basis but exploit a money glitch yourself, simple as.

Those are not big tournaments by the 'official' (ATP-endorsed) definition of that (which is: slams, YEC, masters, maybe olympics).

Oh, my bad. Sometimes I miss how shrinked the cherry-picked sample can get.

My general point stands.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Imagine bookie odds give players the equivalent chances in money of 97-5, which sums up to 102%. That extra 2% is the house's margin, in reality they think it's a 96-4. A player's risk of injury is around ~2%, which explains only half of the (heavy) underdog winning odds, in theory (reality is even lower cause reasons I exposed before, such as only accepting 1+ sets played), the rest is him winning legit. But you know in reality that player got absolutely no chance, so it's really a 98-2. That's an average ROI of 1% if you bet on the favorite. Any prime ATG plays over 60+ games against heavy underdogs in the course of a season. If you put money in each one of these you should get an annual 80%+ ROI (with a big chance of losing it all though, so realistically a ~15-20% with some flat-betting and you'd still safely be doing better than S&P500).

I singled out specifically slams, BO3 lesser tournaments are not that certain to risk so much. Not a lot of opportunities to profit, then. I do think that genuinely smart and careful betting strategies can bring you guaranteed profit, but it is quite small, no better than the basic interest rate you can get in a bank (which is quite high here these days, 14% on offer easily - shows the economy is in a bubble because *reasons*), so no point bothering. Also, I don't know how well the gambling industry is regulated where you live, but here it's quite poor and I've read many stories of betting companies simply refusing to pay out large winnings for invented reasons, and there's no recourse against that 'cause gov doesn't care.

You know who was certainly strong in our hypothetical matchup? WB 2019 F Roger

Not strong enough to beat actual peak/prime Fed in the best of cases, though.

Don't think I can summarize it better. We can leave that there.

Weak (and disrespectful).

There's a 0% chance in TTW slang and a very different real 0% chance. You insist on the later and that's factually wrong. It's not rocket science, people put into, win and lose tons of money just on that. If you think betting houses got their odds consistenly wrong you'd not only prove they're losing money on a basis but exploit a money glitch yourself, simple as.

You are engaging in faulty reasoning and telling me I'm wrong, yeah right.
If most people who bet did so in a smart, careful way, betting companies might be losing money and would have to adjust their odds or something. But that is not the case and never will be, since humans are fools, and most bet recreationally without great strategy, which of course leads to them losing / betting companies winning in the long run. Also I'm not sure how honest they are in terms of paying out large winnings - as I said, here in Russia they can cheat and nothing happens. Maybe not the case where you live.

Oh, my bad. Sometimes I miss how shrinked the cherry-picked sample can get.

My general point stands.

I made *my* point, and you have in no way dispelled it.

 

[Jav]

I singled out specifically slams, BO3 lesser tournaments are not that certain to risk so much. Not a lot of opportunities to profit, then. I do think that genuinely smart and careful betting strategies can bring you guaranteed profit, but it is quite small, no better than the basic interest rate you can get in a bank (which is quite high here these days, 14% on offer easily - shows the economy is in a bubble because *reasons*), so no point bothering. Also, I don't know how well the gambling industry is regulated where you live, but here it's quite poor and I've read many stories of betting companies simply refusing to pay out large winnings for invented reasons, and there's no recourse against that 'cause gov doesn't care.

You're missing it now.

I'm not promoting gambling nor saying it's profitable on an average basis or the long run. It is not. I don't gamble myself.
What I'm saying is that they would under your perception of them, which is unrealistic.

There are NOT broken odds on different matchups of the same nature ("extreme" heavy favorite vs underdog cases) on a constant basis. Sometimes a company offers you a slightly favorable margin for the favorite but as part of a parlay and to stand out from competition, not as a general market betting odd as I refer to here.

Not strong enough to beat actual peak/prime Fed in the best of cases, though.

You've got a rigid way of thinking for diverging views and a pretty laxed one for your arguments.

All to keep defending a peak Aulderer would actually have no chance against his younger self, like he was your average journeyman.

Weak (and disrespectful).

No pun intended. It may be language barrier from my side. We've got different views as with many things.

You are engaging in faulty reasoning and telling me I'm wrong, yeah right.
If most people who bet did so in a smart, careful way, betting companies might be losing money and would have to adjust their odds or something. But that is not the case and never will be, since humans are fools, and most bet recreationally without great strategy, which of course leads to them losing / betting companies winning in the long run. Also I'm not sure how honest they are in terms of paying out large winnings - as I said, here in Russia they can cheat and nothing happens. Maybe not the case where you live.

Answered above.

I made *my* point, and you have in no way dispelled it.

I think I did when I made it clear Hewitt and even Roddick lost to your Karlović, Rusedski or Tipsarević much more frequently than Oldovic ever did. And you still put him below peak Aulderer on Wimbledon, right?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You're missing it now.

I'm not promoting gambling nor saying it's profitable on an average basis or the long run. It is not. I don't gamble myself.
What I'm saying is that they would under your perception of them, which is unrealistic.

There are NOT broken odds on different matchups of the same nature ("extreme" heavy favorite vs underdog cases) on a constant basis. Sometimes a company offers you a slightly favorable margin for the favorite but as part of a parlay and to stand out from competition, not as a general market betting odd as I refer to here.

I don't think this is true and I don't think your argument for why it must be true holds water (going deeper, what is your argument for why that argument must hold water?).

You've got a rigid way of thinking for diverging views and a pretty laxed one for your arguments.

All to keep defending a peak Aulderer would actually have no chance against his younger self, like he was your average journeyman.

Anyone whose max possible level is below prime healthy Federer's min possible level (in given conditions: in this case, Wimbledon) would have no chance against him, of course.

No pun intended. It may be language barrier from my side. We've got different views as with many things.


I think I did when I made it clear Hewitt and even Roddick lost to your Karlović, Rusedski or Tipsarević much more frequently than Oldovic ever did. And you still put him below peak Aulderer on Wimbledon, right?

I am drawn to suspect you're deliberately pulling my leg as I doubt a person of sound intelligence as you certainly appear to be would repeatedly misunderstand my argument.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I personally don't rate 1 surface dominance. I prefer a player who's good on every surface.

Well ‘05-‘08 Nadal obviously clears that bar if the baseline is ‘22-‘25 Alcaraz. We’re not comparing him to ‘04-‘07 Federer.

Anyway, point is that Alcaraz’ more varied winning distributions in a tour without Nadal have little bearing on how things would play out with them as contemporaries. Nadal would win more, because clay is that big of a bulwark…the corollary being that his “1 surface domination” would net him boatloads of slams no matter the era strength. The same can’t be easily said for ‘22-‘25 Alcaraz.

Hence why I keep bringing up ‘08-‘12. Federer was better on grass, HC, indoors. Djokovic was much better on outdoor/indoor HC, and kept up on grass. Both were more complete. Yet even in this tough 5-year period Nadal won the most of the three on the strength of his clay dominance. It doesn’t seem like anyone cares to tackle the implications of this, but it’s a decent proxy.

I'm guessing you're a Nadal fan I'm curious now lol( please do tell which of the big3 you like).

Fedkovic lol, rooted against Nadal in almost every big match he ever played. Also much prefer watching Raz’s game to Nadal’s.

Nadal's biggest weapon(FH) didn't allow him to become great on HC or be close to fedovic.

Those guys are the undisputed HC GOATs and there’s not even a close third, but Nadal still managed to win 6 HC slams/make 11 finals while sharing an era with them. Alcaraz has been better on HC (read: the US Open) than Youngdal but has also never had a year to himself as the best HC’er (‘26 is pending).

Once his speed died(his other biggest attribute overall) out sadly he for me lost his rivalry with novak.

His best attribute is his forehand, which was the driving force behind his late-career slams even after his mobility faded. There’s little to suggest Nadal was **that** much more reliant on athleticism than Alcaraz. Man was still the best or second-best baseliner in the world every year from 31-35.

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 .

Ideally built for being better on clay than any player has ever been on any surface, but also to win 8 slams in less optimal conditions.

but he won significantly less on grass and HC.

yeah and I don’t envision ‘22-‘25 Alcaraz winning much on HC and grass opposite Federer and Djokovic either.

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

I said Nadal was better.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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

I think the reason is that he was a bit unproven mentally (the collapse the previous month). Raz did great to curb doubts and get over the line but I don’t really see how it helps him much here. The odds would be significantly longer against ‘06/‘08 Federer, the latter of whom Nadal actually beat.

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)

‘24 F Alcaraz was arguably the best match of his career so no qualms with an ‘>’ over ‘23 (maybe even multiple!) but that year’s Djokovic was also worse. And no roasting but definitely disagree with him being an an equal plane to even a slightly diminished ‘08 Federer.

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

Gaudio played a mediocre match and Coria merely an ok one (for their standards), but the scorelines made both look significantly worse than they were. Those are “Nadal on clay” tingz. Coria was the second-best CC’er ITW in the ‘05 Masters.

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

El Flaco + Kohl (a combined 12 titles, 10 RU’s) ~ or > Draper/Khachanov (combined 1 CC final) on clay. Musetti > Berdych, but Fed was the best of their respective opponents and entered the final without conceding a set. 4 and 4 ain’t a great scoreline but it’s not like Carrot would do much better against a marauding Nadal.

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

Fair enough.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Is a dispositive statement on how their RG’s stack up even possible? Neither were close to ‘08 Nadal, Djokovic’s conqueror.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Is a dispositive statement on how their RG’s stack up even possible? Neither were close to ‘08 Nadal, Djokovic’s conqueror.

Djokovic was far better by level tbh. RG24 is amongst the lowest winning levels i've seen at a major.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Well no, Alcaraz wasn’t so active that summer. He reached the Oly final without losing a set, skipped Canada and lost early in Cincy. Nadal won Canada, made the semis of Cincy, won Oly’s (losing two sets, one to the best HC player that year, and winning the BO5 final) before making the semis at the USO.

 

[Gastino]

Reaching highest stakes on tour as Raz did as early as 2022 is putting yourself in a position to lose it, which feeds our 'loser' or 'underperformer' bias; however, nothing could be further from the truth. Will always be better to lose precociously at the highest stage than never touching it for years.

I'm not scrutinizing 20-21 yo Carlos unless we do exactly the same with the others ...and we know both why he refused to talk about young federer lol

 

[TheFifthSet]

Djokovic was far better by level tbh. RG24 is amongst the lowest winning levels i've seen at a major.

Maybe slightly harsh since Zverev played very well in the first three sets and Raz won each of his 3 authoritatively, but agree that Djokovic’s level was higher. The third set of the semi is one of my personal favourites.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Maybe slightly harsh since Zverev played very well in the first three sets and Raz won each of his 3 authoritatively, but agree that Djokovic’s level was higher. The third set of the semi is one of my personal favourites.

Zverev played good in set 2 and 3 but he certainly did not lose because his opponent found a magical level but only for his usual shortcomings. Heck he even got unlucky with that 5th set call.

Djokovic was great in the 2008 clay season, well before RG