If Alcaraz doesn't win 30 slams in this mug era, will it be a letdown?

B

btsjungkook

Professional
Considering his talent and this weak era with the big 2 declining, would he be seen as a failure if he can't win at least 30 slams minimum.
 
People, please don't act like it's so easy to win slams. All the best players make sure they show up to each slam so you have to win 7 very difficult matches in a row in a short period of time and for the men they have to win 3 sets and sometimes play 5 sets. The level of fitness you have to achieve just to get through that, let alone win is immense. Just because the Big 3 won 20 or more slams each doesn't mean it's easy. Go play one match 3 out of 5 sets with someone your level and then one match one level above you and you'll appreciate what the pros do more. Then imagine playing a pro who is top 125 in the world. You would get destroyed. Then imagine how much you would have to do just to be able to beat #125 in the world. Then imagine what you would have to do to get through a gauntlet of the top 125 players in 2 weeks, having to beat 7 of them. You would have to go back in time to the age of 3, play 6 hours a day or more, everyday, play in as many tournaments as you can, do fitness training after practice, then somehow manage to be better than every other person on the whole planet. Then you have to be fortunate enough not to get injured or come back from them quickly and be at the same level as before. Not a guarantee you can stay healthy. Then you think you can win 30 slams through all that. If it's so easy, you think it's such a weak era, anyone can beat these hacks, that's just going to attract the next great player into the game and you will have to contend with that young, great player when you're older, but trying to get to 30 slams. Good luck with that!
 
This repetitive pattern of constantly calling mugs to current players is getting out of hands. Winning 30 Slams is a monumental task on any era, that's why no one has done that.
 
Last edited:
A first step on the long stair, is to reach his first slam final.

He has now lost big tournaments to Norrie and Paul on HC, Musetti and Sinner on clay and Sinner also in Wimbledon.
 
jimmy8 said:
People, please don't act like it's so easy to win slams. All the best players make sure they show up to each slam so you have to win 7 very difficult matches in a row in a short period of time and for the men they have to win 3 sets and sometimes play 5 sets. The level of fitness you have to achieve just to get through that, let alone win is immense. Just because the Big 3 won 20 or more slams each doesn't mean it's easy. Go play one match 3 out of 5 sets with someone your level and then one match one level above you and you'll appreciate what the pros do more. Then imagine playing a pro who is top 125 in the world. You would get destroyed. Then imagine how much you would have to do just to be able to beat #125 in the world. Then imagine what you would have to do to get through a gauntlet of the top 125 players in 2 weeks, having to beat 7 of them. You would have to go back in time to the age of 3, play 6 hours a day or more, everyday, play in as many tournaments as you can, do fitness training after practice, then somehow manage to be better than every other person on the whole planet. Then you have to be fortunate enough not to get injured or come back from them quickly and be at the same level as before. Not a guarantee you can stay healthy. Then you think you can win 30 slams through all that. If it's so easy, you think it's such a weak era, anyone can beat these hacks, that's just going to attract the next great player into the game and you will have to contend with that young, great player when you're older, but trying to get to 30 slams. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

 
Not really. Only the internet and TV pundits paid to hype seems to be calling him the GOAT. I find most tennis fans I know in real are level headed about him.
 
jimmy8 said:
People, please don't act like it's so easy to win slams. All the best players make sure they show up to each slam so you have to win 7 very difficult matches in a row in a short period of time and for the men they have to win 3 sets and sometimes play 5 sets. The level of fitness you have to achieve just to get through that, let alone win is immense. Just because the Big 3 won 20 or more slams each doesn't mean it's easy. Go play one match 3 out of 5 sets with someone your level and then one match one level above you and you'll appreciate what the pros do more. Then imagine playing a pro who is top 125 in the world. You would get destroyed. Then imagine how much you would have to do just to be able to beat #125 in the world. Then imagine what you would have to do to get through a gauntlet of the top 125 players in 2 weeks, having to beat 7 of them. You would have to go back in time to the age of 3, play 6 hours a day or more, everyday, play in as many tournaments as you can, do fitness training after practice, then somehow manage to be better than every other person on the whole planet. Then you have to be fortunate enough not to get injured or come back from them quickly and be at the same level as before. Not a guarantee you can stay healthy. Then you think you can win 30 slams through all that. If it's so easy, you think it's such a weak era, anyone can beat these hacks, that's just going to attract the next great player into the game and you will have to contend with that young, great player when you're older, but trying to get to 30 slams. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...
People here repeat the terms "mug", "weakera", "pigeons", among others, constantly, but they do not know the difficulty that means, even winning a tournament of the lowest category, such as an ATP 250 and that the player enters and stays for years in the top 100.
Let's not even talk about the super, hyper, mega elite, which is 0.1 and that they are, it seems, from another galaxy.
Talking for talking is easy but when you don't know from the inside what high competition means, it's better to stay quiet and pretend to be smart that way.
:whistle:
 
totally disagree with the opinion that we are in or moving into a weak era for tennis. the greats are still who they are and will keep on putting themselves into positions to win majors. the rest of the field has many strong newcomers and the 20 somethings are improving. you six american players alone who are dangerous. that hasn't been true in a while.
 
Absolutely, he'll be seen as a complete failure if he doesn't get 30 slams...I figure he's good for 28 and no more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Alcaraz will win 12 slams by 25 and 20 by 30.
2 3
Replies
102
Views
3K
gamelovergold
G
G
Alcaraz has the potential to win 30+ slams
2
Replies
92
Views
5K
gamelovergold
G
Sport
  • Poll Poll
Will some tennis player ever win 30 Grand Slams?
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Deleted member 758560
D
F
  • Poll Poll
Murray will win more than 17 slams - mainad ( END OF GOAT DEBATE)
Replies
14
Views
2K
Bud
Bud
M
Alcaraz will win more slams than Sinner
Replies
16
Views
868
ChaelAZ
ChaelAZ
Back
Top