"First it was Agassi-Sampras, then Federer-Nadal, then Djokovic came, now it is Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner" - Juan Martin del Potro

N

ND-13

Legend
"I love seeing Carlos Alcaraz because he has a freshness and naturalness when walking on the court that makes him look like a 30-year-old guy who has been on the circuit for ten years and is super young," Juan Martin del Potro told Punto de Break.


"He is going to be very good for tennis, that face-to-face against Sinner. A rivalry that tennis constantly had is going to happen," he added. "First it was Agassi-Sampras, then Roger-Rafa, then Novak came. And now it will be the two of them."


x.com

x.com x.com
 
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...

Lol on top of that they take themselves too seriously even though they have been wrong for decades regarding total slam prediction of big 3 and laughed at anyone who thought it can get broken.
 
NeutralFan said:
Lol on top of that they take themselves too seriously even though they have been wrong for decades regarding total slam prediction of big 3 and laughed at anyone who thought it can get broken.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they think too high of themselves....... these fellows have been wrong for years....yet they think they have the wisdom of many decades in them.

Quite laughable.... There are even some fedfans here who have not seen Tennis live in Fed's peak years, they've become Fedfans in 09 or 10 and today you will find them as talk tennis gurus or bionic posters who think they know all about Federer, lol...
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Yep. From del Potro's boneheaded "grasp" of tennis rivalry history, you'd think he was one of the more notorious TTW members who have a very short, or inexperience-based memory.
Click to expand...
Actually from my experience the average TTW poster has a better knowledge and better memories of tennis history than most players and even commentators. We might disagree about how to judge something or about the bigger picture behind many things, but at least here's very decent knowledge about what happened and when it happened.
 
Razer said:
Yeah, they think too high of themselves....... these fellows have been wrong for years....yet they think they have the wisdom of many decades in them.

Quite laughable.... There are even some fedfans here who have not seen Tennis live in Fed's peak years, they've become Fedfans in 09 or 10 and today you will find them as talk tennis gurus or bionic posters who think they know all about Federer, lol...
Click to expand...

There were some polls where Hypothetical was in Roddick's favour for peak for peak in Wimbledon final ( even when Djokovic had 3 Wimbledon titles when poll started ) some renowned scholars even voted 8-2 , 7-3.
 
Last edited:
NeutralFan said:
There were some polls where Hypothetical was in Roddick's favour for peak for peak in Wimbledon final ( even when Djokovic had 3 Wimbledon titles) some renowned scholars even voted 8-2 , 7-3.
Click to expand...
10 match series how does it go?
 
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...
Respect to the foolhardy few carrying the torch of given wisdom from past tennis historians.
 
Last edited:
RS said:
For me 8-2 Djokovic is a fair reflection.
Click to expand...

I can't say because Djokovic is an evolved version of slow grass court baseliners that started it in early 2000s, On 90s grass Roddick will not be easy, post 2010? He will have tough time especially in final. No agenda here just my neutral perspective.
 
NeutralFan said:
I can't say because Djokovic is an evolved version of slow grass court baseliners that started it in early 2000s, On 90s grass Roddick will not be easy, post 2010? He will have tough time especially in final. No agenda here just my neutral perspective.
Click to expand...

2009 Roddick could win vs some versions of Djokovic

Moreover when I do hypotheticals I always assume the players born together and then evolving together..... otherwise these hypotheticals dont make sense since time machines dont exist.

I think Roddick gets too much flak for being born in the wrong era and looking so outclassed against evolved versions like Novak in hypotheticals, but if you put them both together of the same age then A Rod will actually do better than what his resume looks.... his backhand would also be improved.
 
RS said:
For me 8-2 Djokovic is a fair reflection.
Click to expand...
Nope 6-4, 7-3 is better reflection, it will all depends upon Roddick big serve, can he serve consistently like Murray match in 09 or Fed final.
If yes then I can see match getting really close.
See Nick was serving very good and match went to fourth set, think what will happen if Roddick serve very good
 
NAS said:
Nope 6-4, 7-3 is better reflection, it will all depends upon Roddick big serve, can he serve consistently like Murray match in 09 or Fed final.
If yes then I can see match getting really close.
See Nick was serving very good and match went to fourth set, think what will happen if Roddick serve very good
Click to expand...
6-4 is pretty nice and generous to Rod but I might agree on 7-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...
Yes, to be knowledgeable and conversant about people or events before you were born is "weird." Nothing existed 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago apparently. A staggeringly moronic way to view life, history and the world.

Lendl? Who's that? He retired before I was born. Nothing to see there. Laver who? Don't need to know that dude cause he's old. Connors? Never heard of him, before I was born. Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven? Like so lame, kinda like a different century or whatever!
 
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...
tbf didn’t you create topic about villas clay court career vs Djokovic ? We have to respect history of the sport.
 
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...
NatF is one of them.
Maybe he's a time traveler, who knows.
:oops:
 
Even during Delpo’s presence we have had so many other clashes . Not sure why Delpo forgot :


Djokovic- Zverev
Djokovic- Raonic
Djokovic- Dmitrov
Djokovic- Nishikori
Djokovic- Thiem
Djokovic- Tsitsipas
Djokovic - Ruud
Djokovic- Berretini
Djokovic- Medvedev
Djokovic- Monfils
 
Razer said:
Some posters who are Fed fans (won't name anyone....hint is enough) talk of pancho and tilden despite they themselves being like 35 years old or maybe even younger.... I find it super weird.
Click to expand...
Oh, without question, with three of the worst TTW Fed-fanatics spend years attempting to sell their laughable revisionist history as fact, all to place Federer on a platform he did not earn. This shameful mindset begins (or follows Fed-obsession) with pretending historical recognition did not exist before Federer.
 
200.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Purestriker said:
200.webp
Click to expand...
I will never forget the 2009 US Open final.
A young Argentine player would definitively end the greatest dominance of a tennis player in NY in the Open Era.
An unforgettable and high quality final.
Del Potro, along with Nadal, were the only tennis players to defeat prime Federer in a Grand Slam final.
A place reserved only for giants like "La Torre de Tandil".
:cool:
 
fedfan24 said:
tbf didn’t you create topic about villas clay court career vs Djokovic ? We have to respect history of the sport.
Click to expand...

Vilas is from the open era.

My concern is, how do we rate Tilden or Pancho ? If somebody says Tilden was year end 1 for 8-9 years and so he is better than Federer who was for 5 years, then what response do you give to such a person ?

Tilden played at a time when Tennis was more of a recreational stuff.
 
ND-13 said:
"I love seeing Carlos Alcaraz because he has a freshness and naturalness when walking on the court that makes him look like a 30-year-old guy who has been on the circuit for ten years and is super young," Juan Martin del Potro told Punto de Break.


"He is going to be very good for tennis, that face-to-face against Sinner. A rivalry that tennis constantly had is going to happen," he added. "First it was Agassi-Sampras, then Roger-Rafa, then Novak came. And now it will be the two of them."


x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...
"First it was Agassi-Sampras, then Roger-Rafa, then Novak came. Then came Alcaraz and Sinner. But they weren't very good and Nadal-Djokovic vultured all of their slams. The End."

Story hour with Juan Martin Del Potro.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Oh, without question, with three of the worst TTW Fed-fanatics spend years attempting to sell their laughable revisionist history as fact, all to place Federer on a platform he did not earn. This shameful mindset begins (or follows Fed-obsession) with pretending historical recognition did not exist before Federer.
Click to expand...

I think hype by media also has a big role to play in selling the narrative to kids.

Media does 2 things

01. Hypes current players
02. Picks and chooses what part of history to talk of and ignores rest.

When I was a kid the former players I read of was Navratilova, Boris Becker, John Mcenroe... read even stuffs like Martina Hingis winning slams as a 16 year old.... such things we read but we never heard of names like Ivan Lendl or Margaret Court ever.....

Federer's hype was justified when he was winning a lot as that defined Tennis back then, if today Sinner starts winning like Federer's best years and chases the slams record then even he will be hyped and Big 3 will become forgotten news...
 
BeatlesFan said:
Yes, to be knowledgeable and conversant about people or events before you were born is "weird." Nothing existed 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago apparently. A staggeringly moronic way to view life, history and the world.

Lendl? Who's that? He retired before I was born. Nothing to see there. Laver who? Don't need to know that dude cause he's old. Connors? Never heard of him, before I was born. Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven? Like so lame, kinda like a different century or whatever!
Click to expand...

Ehhh... you cannot compart musicians to tennis players

Beethovan's symphony can be loved even 200 years after his death because music is music, it is unique and never dies, but you cannot watch a match played 200 years ago even if it is tapped as that would look so primitive, the game would advance so much and athletes would be so much better that even college level players 200 years from now would be far better than Djokovic/Federer of their peaks...

So Tilden who played 100 years ago is obsolete but Beethovan who died 200 years ago is still a legend.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Oh, without question, with three of the worst TTW Fed-fanatics spend years attempting to sell their laughable revisionist history as fact, all to place Federer on a platform he did not earn. This shameful mindset begins (or follows Fed-obsession) with pretending historical recognition did not exist before Federer.
Click to expand...

I like Federer a lot, but it does feel some feel he was entitled to the GOAT title. Cannot stomach that Djokovic raced past him.

Djokovic has the most slams at the end of the day.
 
DSH said:
I will never forget the 2009 US Open final.
A young Argentine player would definitively end the greatest dominance of a tennis player in NY in the Open Era.
An unforgettable and high quality final.
Del Potro, along with Nadal, were the only tennis players to defeat prime Federer in a Grand Slam final.
A place reserved only for giants like "La Torre de Tandil".
:cool:
Click to expand...
Muchachos!
 
Razer said:
So Tilden who played 100 years ago is obsolete but Beethovan who died 200 years ago is still a legend.
Click to expand...

Tennis is all one sport, with a flowing history, so for anyone, especially such as del Potro--who is a professional in that sport--to not be aware of / recognize the endless great rivalries pre-Sampras/Agassi reveals him to be a narrow-minded, remarkably uneducated man. Age of an event does not remove its value and importance. For example, no one today in their right mind is going to downgrade or forget Jesse Owens' victories at the 1936 Olympics, not only for his actual record-setting performance, but its significant role in a monumentally historic period of world history. That was eighty-eight years ago--nearly a century, but nothing, including other great Olympic performances that followed over the decades.

The truly great is timeless, except to those who view achievements based on their fan calendar, which del Potro is apparently using.
 
DSH said:
NatF is one of them.
Maybe he's a time traveler, who knows.
:oops:
Click to expand...
Don't know why my age means I can't comment. People comment on all sorts of things from before they born in all sorts of fields. Tennis discourse these days might legitimately be run by some of the most narrow minded and stupid people on the planet. Most sports cherish and celebrate their legends. But apparently there's something wrong with me throwing guys like Pancho, Tilden etc...into the mix, why? I've studied their records, read books and first hand accounts. Spoken with a half dozen actual bonafide tennis historians and writers. I agree that an actual ordered list of these great players is what @Gary Duane would call intellectual masturbation but putting them in the conversation is just giving them their due.
 
42 posts for not understanding English it seems..

First there was Agassi and Sampras

Then there was fedal

Then came Djokovic. Meaning there were 3 rivalries instead of 1.

If English is your first language and it's troll thread then make it clear. To me it looks very clearly what Delpo said.

Rafole 59 matches and fedkovic 50 matches with 9 and 5 slam finals respectively.

It's far better than Sampras Agassi at 34 matches overall and 5 slam finals.

Now go back and read what Delpo said. Fedkovic and Rafole are two of the all time rivalries.
 
Instead of getting angry at Delpo, lets see what he meant first.

Unless the members are really that big a trolls, see what Delpo meant first.

A rivalry that tennis constantly had is going to happen.

Fedal finished as early as 2010. They had some matches in 2017 but they were no more a factor in between. 2 Slam final post 2009 AO between them.

While Fedkovic had 5 finals between 2014 to 2019 - same as entire Sampras Agassi's 13 years slam rivalry.

And Rafole had 8 finals between 2010 till 2014.

First it was Agassi Sampras

Then it was Fedal

Then came Djokovic and we had

Rafole between 2010 till 2014 and Fedkovic between 2014 till 2019.

And Rafa and Novak were back in 2019-2020 again. With 2 more slam finals.
 
Last edited:
Instead of being so obvious do check how many slam finals these guys have played vs each other.

McEnroe vs Connors - 2 in entire career
Connors vs Borg - 4 in entire career
Borg vs McEnroe - 4 in entire career
McEnroe vs Lendl - 3 in entire career
Becker vs Lendl - 3 in entire career
Becker vs Edberg. - 3 in entire career
Wilander vs Lendl - 5 in entire career

In fact post Edberg, the ATG slam finals reduced.

Only rivalry was Sampras Agassi - 5 times

Then directly

Fedal - 9 times record all time
Then
Rafole - 9 times record all time

And Fedkovic 5 times second highest among any other 2 ATG in open era.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Tennis is all one sport, with a flowing history, so for anyone, especially such as del Potro--who is a professional in that sport--to not be aware of / recognize the endless great rivalries pre-Sampras/Agassi reveals him to be a narrow-minded, remarkably uneducated man. Age of an event does not remove its value and importance. For example, no one today in their right mind is going to downgrade or forget Jesse Owens' victories at the 1936 Olympics, not only for his actual record-setting performance, but its significant role in a monumentally historic period of world history. That was eighty-eight years ago--nearly a century, but nothing, including other great Olympic performances that followed over the decades.

The truly great is timeless, except to those who view achievements based on their fan calendar, which del Potro is apparently using.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but the problem is most of us were not there in 1936 to witness it and so eventually the importance of feats do get diminished.

I do agree with you that it shouldn't but the farther we go, the tougher it becomes to compare athletes.

Also it is worth nothing that Jesse Owens did not have many benefits which current athletes have and yet he was quite fast in his own way, so he is comparable, but Mr Tilden would be unable to beat anyone in the top 100 or even in top 200 now because today everyone is so much evolved.
 
Fedal had 7 finals between 2006 RG till 2009 AO - In under 4 years.

Rafole had 7 finals between 2010 USO till 2014 RG - In under 5 years

Both were peakest rivalries in terms of ATG playing in slam finals. Add to that, Federer was making tons of semis between 2010 till 2014 and Djokovic made a few semis in 2006 till 2009 making these three greatest rivalries in tennis history. All above Sampras Agassi which is the closest rivalry to these three. But far behind.
 
NatF said:
Don't know why my age means I can't comment. People comment on all sorts of things from before they born in all sorts of fields. Tennis discourse these days might legitimately be run by some of the most narrow minded and stupid people on the planet. Most sports cherish and celebrate their legends. But apparently there's something wrong with me throwing guys like Pancho, Tilden etc...into the mix, why? I've studied their records, read books and first hand accounts. Spoken with a half dozen actual bonafide tennis historians and writers. I agree that an actual ordered list of these great players is what @Gary Duane would call intellectual masturbation but putting them in the conversation is just giving them their due.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
Tell Razer that he is surprised that young people like you have knowledge of tennis legends of yesteryear.
:D
 
2006 RG till 2009 AO - In under 16 slams, Fedal played 7 finals

2010 USO till 2014 RG - In under 15 slams, Rafole played 7 finals.

Rafole rivalry was so consistent infact, that ESPN writers like Peter Bodo started calling it boring seeing these two in every slam finals. Only pair in history to contest 4 slams back to back. Only other pair who even played all 4 finals is Djokovic and Murray. No one else. So Djokovic had 1 rivalry ongoing with Murray as well although far overshadowed by Fedal, Rafole.

Between 2011 AO till 2016 RG - In 22 slams, Djokovic and Murray met in 7 finals. Third highest in slam history. And it was also competitive with Murray winning 2 finals and Djokovic winning 5.
Although Murray was not ATG, so I didn't write this before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CHillTennis
Del Potro Is a Serious Threat to Nadal
2 3
Replies
111
Views
9K
DSH
DSH
jimmy0slams
John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
D.Nalby12
D
N
Djokovic's ex-coach : It was not the real Djokovic who played Wimb 23 Final
2 3
Replies
137
Views
5K
hoodjem
hoodjem
Third Serve
2013 Andy Murray, Juan Martin Del Potro, and David Ferrer would possibly sweep the CYGS in 2007, as proven by facts and logic.
Replies
21
Views
737
ActualTennisPlayer
A
Rovesciarete
Yes, Jannik Sinner is really this good! written by Tennisabstract's Jeff Sackmann
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
Rovesciarete
Rovesciarete
Back
Top