Andre Agassi shows Carlos Alcaraz how to be an ATG potential

[tennis_pro]

This whole thread feels like a trolling practice sheet of some sort.

 

[jeroenn]

If you you are a way younger atg and you can't handle the way older atg, you can't take over the field enough to be an atg because to be atg you have to rack up slams whether it be against a 10 time slam atg or a 50 time slam atg.

Weird comparisation and logical fallacy too, btw.

You would consider Agassi and ATG, eventhough after this win over Connors he proceeded to lose his first three slam finals, have an atrocious drop of level to the challenger circuit and ultimately had to conceed a lot of his carreer to Sampras.

If beating a former ATG is the only meassuring stick for becoming an ATG, then perhaps you may have a point. But ultimately, getting this is about results over your whole career. And up util now, CA's carreer is exceptional and far ahead of what Agassi had at age 20: Being nr1, 2 slams, 4 master 1000's , 12 titles overall.

If AC grabs the slam record, nobody wil look back in 20 years, saying yeah, but he lost from Nadal when he was 19, so he's stil a mug.

 

[thrust]

doesn't matter. andre got it done. if you are gonna be atg you better clean sweep the grandpas and alcaraz couldn't do it, he is just a ttg.

PETTY NONSENSE! At 20, Alcaraz has already won 2 slams and 2 masters1000. Nadal, especially on clay and Novak are better players at 36 than Connors was. Therefore, there should be no need to belittle Carlos's achievements at 19-20.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Comparing today's 36 to 80s' 36 and Claydal to Connors at USO? This is deeply flawed.