Have we been spoilt by "Tier 1" ATGs, so we are too harsh on / expectant of potential "Tier 2" ATGs (which Swiatek, Alcaraz etc might be?)

jl809

jl809

Legend
For all I know Alcaraz or Swiatek may well win 18+ slams and be "Tier 1 ATGs" - up there with the Big 3, Serena, Graf etc. It's clear that both will likely win many more slams before they are done, as they have multiple surfaces on which they are better than the vast majority of the tour, very frequently, and they are very young.

But one thing that occurred to me today when I saw people dissing Alcaraz for not being the new Nadal (which some idiot pundits had hyped him up to be) is that we've totally lost our frame of reference for what ATGs even are anymore.

Since Agassi and Henin retired, we haven't had any Tier 2 or Tier 3 ATGs - guys who are not at the freakish upper end of the sport for dominance, but who could win multiple slams on multiple surfaces throughout their career (and more than a handful overall) - on the tour at all except for Venus Williams, who hasn't been competitive since 2017. We've just had 3 guys in an arms race for 20+ slams and Serena endlessly chasing Court's record. Nobody has looked like levelling out around 10-15 or even 5 slams apart from Murray briefly at the end of 2016.

It could be that we are looking at such Tier 2/3 ATGs in these 2 players now ... and that's fine! In a world in which someone is seemingly either a Mug or the Next Federer, let's chill on belittling someone if they're not the latter, and still appreciate that they can be an incredible tennis player without being a GOAT. It would be nice to be able to use the phrase "one of the greats of the game" more often, without that always referring to a player involved in a GOAT debate
 
I really thought Serena would get to Court's record.

That's another WTA who is greater debate I guess were weak era and asterisk era discussions will never end
 
I think posters would be fine with a deep field or prime level tennis. Maybe the name doesn't always matter to them.
 
I think there have been a few women in intermediate categories since 2017, though probably not men given that Wawrinka and Murray both fell off a cliff that year. Barty and Osaka are perhaps in a tier IV category but if they hadn’t both stopped playing so soon they would have had a chance to move up to tier III. (Assuming that “leveling out around 5 slams” is tier III).
 
How many RG titles will Iga Swiatek win in her career, will she surpass Chris Evert's record?
:D
 
Yes. No player should be expected to break the latest big records and become the next GOAT this early, it's insane pressure.
The media is somewhat calling Sinner, Alcaraz and Rune as the new Big 3, really ? Are you going to expect them to win 20+ Slams each ?
 
Yeah we absolutely have been spoilt. Djokovic/Federer/Nadal and on the WTA side players like Serena all in the same decade of tennis was like a golden ticket of talent and greatness and the players they were competing with like Murray, Venus, Sharapova. These are all outstanding all-court players. They are not just peaking on one surface, they are going deep on all surfaces.

We're probably never going to see a field as strong as that ever again and people and the media don't like that. The best player currently is all that matters to most people and we want to believe that tennis is evolving. It's not sadly, both Swiatek and Alcaraz are unproven on grass so far so until that changes, I'm skeptical to put either of them in Tier 1 even if both hit 18+ slams.
 
jl809 said:
For all I know Alcaraz or Swiatek may well win 18+ slams and be "Tier 1 ATGs" - up there with the Big 3, Serena, Graf etc. It's clear that both will likely win many more slams before they are done, as they have multiple surfaces on which they are better than the vast majority of the tour, very frequently, and they are very young.

But one thing that occurred to me today when I saw people dissing Alcaraz for not being the new Nadal (which some idiot pundits had hyped him up to be) is that we've totally lost our frame of reference for what ATGs even are anymore.

Since Agassi and Henin retired, we haven't had any Tier 2 or Tier 3 ATGs - guys who are not at the freakish upper end of the sport for dominance, but who could win multiple slams on multiple surfaces throughout their career (and more than a handful overall) - on the tour at all except for Venus Williams, who hasn't been competitive since 2017. We've just had 3 guys in an arms race for 20+ slams and Serena endlessly chasing Court's record. Nobody has looked like levelling out around 10-15 or even 5 slams apart from Murray briefly at the end of 2016.

It could be that we are looking at such Tier 2/3 ATGs in these 2 players now ... and that's fine! In a world in which someone is seemingly either a Mug or the Next Federer, let's chill on belittling someone if they're not the latter, and still appreciate that they can be an incredible tennis player without being a GOAT. It would be nice to be able to use the phrase "one of the greats of the game" more often, without that always referring to a player involved in a GOAT debate
Click to expand...
Fully agree. The whole concept of "if they cannot beat Djokovic now, they can never be ATGs" it totally bogus. All those players we call ATGs right now are simply considered so by numbers. All of them won at least 5 or 6 Slams. So there is zero reason why now we should suddenly start to discount new players as ATGs even when they win 5 or 6 Slams in the future. And there is zero evidence that any of those 5-8 Slam ATGs from the past would have any chances against current Djokovic either.

We must understand that the difference between those 5-8 Slam ATGs to the Big 3 GOAT candidates is a full Sampras career or even more now! Djokovic will reach dimensions where he will have up to 4 times the number of Slams compared to those players. That's another universe, and in reality those praised borderline ATGs are MUCH closer to players like Wawrinka, Murray, Kuerten etc. than to Djokovic.

The concept of "Djokovic never having to play against a young ATG" is circular logic at its best, because he would have done so if he would let others win more Slams. But obviously he will retire one day, and from a later point of view he will have played against younger ATGs, only that he was good enough to only let them become ATGs AFTER he's gone. The same occurs to a little lesser degree to Nadal and Federer too of course.

All that said, I think Iga Swiatek is not the right example here. It's a long way to go, but I think she will be a GOAT candidate. 2 Slams on average for the next 10 years wouldn't sound weird for me. Not by any means.
 
ChrisRF said:
Fully agree. The whole concept of "if they cannot beat Djokovic now, they can never be ATGs" it totally bogus. All those players we call ATGs right now are simply considered so by numbers. All of them won at least 5 or 6 Slams. So there is zero reason why now we should suddenly start to discount new players as ATGs even when they win 5 or 6 Slams in the future. And there is zero evidence that any of those 5-8 Slam ATGs from the past would have any chances against current Djokovic either.

We must understand that the difference between those 5-8 Slam ATGs to the Big 3 GOAT candidates is a full Sampras career or even more now! Djokovic will reach dimensions where he will have up to 4 times the number of Slams compared to those players. That's another universe, and in reality those praised borderline ATGs are MUCH closer to players like Wawrinka, Murray, Kuerten etc. than to Djokovic.

The concept of "Djokovic never having to play against a young ATG" is circular logic at its best, because he would have done so if he would let others win more Slams. But obviously he will retire one day, and from a later point of view he will have played against younger ATGs, only that he was good enough to only let them become ATGs AFTER he's gone. The same occurs to a little lesser degree to Nadal and Federer too of course.

All that said, I think Iga Swiatek is not the right example here. It's a long way to go, but I think she will be a GOAT candidate. 2 Slams on average for the next 10 years wouldn't sound weird for me. Not by any means.
Click to expand...
Murray and Stan took 5 slams from prime Djokovic, but the ATGs of previous eras wouldn't stand a chance?
 
Last edited:
I dont know about Iga. Shes regressed over the last year. Last year I thought she would be in the GOAT hunt.. Now I think she'll just be Seles. She isn't getting any better or improving from what I can tell at the moment. Maybe a new coaching team would help.
 
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
I dont know about Iga. Shes regressed over the last year. Last year I thought she would be in the GOAT hunt.. Now I think she'll just be Seles. She isn't getting any better or improving from what I can tell at the moment. Maybe a new coaching team would help.
Click to expand...
Seles won 8 slams before the stabbing at a young age, beating Graf in 3 of the 4 slam finals they played. IF not for the attack, IMO, she would have won more than the 9 she wound up with.
 
Putting all the nationalist fervour aside and looking at the last two majors with some objectivity, the reality is that with the exception of Alcaraz (who was even with Novak before cramping, had the momentum - toilet breaks & MTOs aside - and was producing far more break point opportunities than Novak who was struggling to some degree with his known issues with the the heat and contacts/wind) Novak hasn’t actually faced any opponents of a caliber you would expect in a major tournament, so much so that he’s playing with injuries & winning without even hitting top gear, depriving us of the spectacle of days past - although we saw glimpses on Friday.
Ruud is a worthy opponent on paper - he has a high ranking and three GS final appearances - but even so the expected level is that of a sans slingshot David (Ferrier) vs. Goliath 1/4 final matchup from years past.
It’s often said that you can only beat the guy in front of you, but, again objectively, it would be nice to see history being made in a more exalted way. As with the Wimbledon final, if only Nadal had been able to step on the other side of the net and at least give us some hope of a clash of titans match for the ages.
As a resident of Melbourne who until recent times has stayed up well past midnight under a blanket watching these epics - and after a long wait had high expectations on Friday only to be shot down in flames just when it was getting interesting - I’m saddened by Sunday’s expected mediocrity. The game hasn’t ebbed like this since Hewitt.
 
DSH said:
How many RG titles will Iga Swiatek win in her career, will she surpass Chris Evert's record?
:D
Click to expand...
She'll win a few more, but when you saw her struggle today down 0-2 in the 3rd against a player who will likely never
win a slam now, you gotta wonder about others who will come along and give her problems in the future.
She is not dominating the way an ATG should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
jl809 said:
But one thing that occurred to me today when I saw people dissing Alcaraz for not being the new Nadal (which some idiot pundits had hyped him up to be) is that we've totally lost our frame of reference for what ATGs even are anymore.
Click to expand...

The dissing of Alcaraz isn't "for not being the new Nadal". It doesn't require a "new Nadal" to beat 36 year old Djokovic at Roland Garros. A 'new Ferrero' would suffice.
 
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
Iga can't even improve one one year to the next in her early 20's
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense, because Iga won the most recent major and her last 5 losses, 4 were to Sabalenka and Rybakina, who are having their best years ever.
By your comment, did Federer regress in 2005 in comparison to 2004 just because he only won 2 majors and didn't win the Masters?
 
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
Alcaraz/Iga are 2nd rate talents compared to the Big 3. Iga can't even improve one one year to the next in her early 20's and Carlos can't beat serbian grandad on clay. They are Henin/Kuertens essentially. Not GOATS from what I have seen this year
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get how threads like this are taken seriously.

He has one slam against a nobody and just came up way short vs an old man.

We are not even close to this conversation. Especially after his SF display.
 
duaneeo said:
The dissing of Alcaraz isn't "for not being the new Nadal". It doesn't require a "new Nadal" to beat 36 year old Djokovic at Roland Garros. A 'new Ferrero' would suffice.
Click to expand...
Djoko- bots will never want to admit that.
I understand it in guys like Wilander, Roddick that it is their duty to promote new prospects to unimaginable levels but to believe that the level of today's players is higher compared to that of just ten years ago is to deny the obvious.
(n)
 
Last edited:
At least the second tier players in 2011-2015 were capable of smelling blood and sending a out-of-form Big 3 member packing (e.g. Berdych vs Nadal in 2015). I mean, 2022 AO Rafa wouldn’t have got passed QF in any other years against - his performance in the last 3 sets in that QF was 2015-level terrible, but Shapo imploded like a clown despite being clearly fresher. Berdych would have sent that Nadal packing.

Likewise, 2017 Djokovic would have beaten Berretini or Shapovalov on grass despite that elbow injury.
 
Anyone with 20 or more slams is a tier 1 ATG Tier 2 would be: Any player would have 10 - 19 slams. Tier 3- 6-9 slams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
2 3 4
Replies
194
Views
10K
zagor
zagor
Djokodalerer31
The king amongst mid-tier open era ATGs?
Replies
38
Views
3K
helterskelter
H
Razer
Number of Surfaces Mastered by ATGs
2
Replies
72
Views
5K
timnz
T
tangerine
The Top Tier Players: Federer, Nadal...and Roddick
Replies
12
Views
2K
tintin
T
falstaff78
Birthdays of Tier 1 and 2 greats - shocking coincidence
Replies
49
Views
7K
Mainad
Mainad
Back
Top