Is Alcaraz already greater than Andy Murray?

[TheFifthSet]

Okay dude, I'll lecture you.

Looking forward to it, professor.

It's nice you recognized you're a Novak fan though. At least we can point out our biases here.

I have my biases, but I somehow doubt they’ve surfaced here.

You specified here Djokovic naturally edges Alcaraz in these key aspects: FH, BH, serve, movement and ROS. Only leaving the net game in Charlie's favor (not even there he leads though). How is their h2h just 5-3, then?

Do you really think I was arguing that the current iteration of Novak is a better mover?

I’ll disabuse you of that notion: I wasn’t. I think Alcaraz has had the better forehand since about the end of ‘23, and has been the better mover for much of their H2H.
Anywho, even if i DID believe it, I struggle to see how a 5-3 H2H (which could have been 6-2, or 7-1, with Djokovic coming off a lower-body injury in one of the losses) would render it silly. Del Potro beat Federer 7 times and the only area he could hang was the FH. Berdych and Tsonga beat him 6 times despite trailing in just about every conceivable category. Tsitsipas had a 2-2 H2H against older Fed. Players are more than the sum of their parts.


But yeah, you fundamentally misunderstood my argument, and I’ve already read all of those match reports (was about to actually mention Oly ‘24 in my last post, to highlight that Wasp is high on both players and thus a fairly objective arbiter). Probably several times over.

So let’s give you a second mulligan and move on to the rest.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Are you comparing him with prime Novak? 2011, or 2015? Because he was 24, and 28 in these respectively. Not 21 as Carlitos last year in the Olympics or this in the AO.

Yes I was comparing him to a matured Novak, so roughly the ‘11-‘23 period.

If it helps, I think a 21/22 y/o Nadal has a clearly better forehand.

Since Novak has definitely declined on his pace (aka movement) throughout the years then he'll need to have improved, or at least he's more dependent on the rest of aspects, including shot selection to keep it competitive, right?

He’s improved in some areas and heavily declined in others. A really big one for me is how he handles the opponents weight-of-shot, particularly on clay.

For that reason I’d say Alcaraz has had the better forehand on clay since maybe even 2022. He’s turned back the clock in some matches but on a match-in match-out basis, I simply do not trust it on the dirt as much as I used to.

But again, this is a rabbit trail.

I think it's clear by now who's got the more threatening, powerful, winning FH.

Powerful, yes.

If you still don't, well. Let's look at some other "evidence".

The sheer topspin and speed numbers.

Some data insights from a pal here?

Some internet background, to know the general consensus?

Hard as it may be to believe, I’ve seen all of these links already. Probably before you have. Nothing new under the sun, as it were, and this is little more than a gish-gallop, lest we should start entertaining the idea that Ruud’s forehand is on a plane with Alcaraz’s because his pace+topsin numbers are close.

As for “the metrics,” you are falsely holding to a view of unanimity among them, when there isn’t. Career FHP/100 (edge Alcaraz, 8.3-7.9) and Per Match (edge Djokovic, 12.1-10.4) are two catch-all where they’re close. I imagine if we had yearly numbers they’d be close too.

Even in the Last 52, Djokovic and Alcaraz are right there with one another. Thoughts?

Of course, if we use such metrics as convo-enders then we probably have to conclude that Federer’s forehand is arguably worse than Djokovic’s something few reasonable folk believe.

Maybe some experts words on it?

How long have you been following tennis?

I don’t mean that as a dig. Genuinely somewhat curious, because you just cited one of its biggest lolcows. Wilander famously called ‘15 Djokovic the best he’s ever seen on clay, before the RG final. You gonna co-sign that one?

If you’d like to know where I stand on “the experts” (in sports, not STEM), I could go on for days but I’ll just link you old posts on the topic, so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from:

Post in thread 'Roddick states he wouldn't be able to beat the top players today.'

Jun 9, 2024

It's not even like pros necessarily know better. Pros aren't exactly known for cleaning up at the bookies in their post-playing days.

As a fellow baseball fan I’m sure you’re intimately familiar with this.

The first 90%+ of baseball history was chockfull of airy-fairy conventional wisdom peddled by ex-players…to a comical degree in hindsight. Seriously, you had managers that would tell their players that walks clogged the bases. It took Sabermetrics to cause a paradigm shift, and now just about every single organized baseball team on the face of the earth plays in the manner...

• TheFifthSet

• 

Post in thread 'Roddick states he wouldn't be able to beat the top players today.'

Jun 10, 2024

I agree that ex-players frequently have bad takes.

However, the analyses done on tt warehouse doesn’t come close to the analyses done by SABR nerds. IMO the takes on tt warehouse are equally bad as those done by ex-players.

It’s not just that analysis here doesn’t rise to the level of SABR nerds. Does tennis even have the data available to do that kind of analysis? There are some numbers but I don’t see we have access to the kind of data that would allow in depth analyses. I understand some pros hire specialized companies to do stat analysis but I think they have access to...

• TheFifthSet

• 

Post in thread 'Roddick states he wouldn't be able to beat the top players today.'

Jun 10, 2024

I agree that just being a pro doesn't mean all your insights will be correct

Yep.

More precisely, I would argue that reflexively bending the knee to credentialism in these matters can hinder our understanding as much or more than it furthers it. Not just for specific topics (the lowest-hanging fruit possible, as you’ve hinted at), but as a default mentality.

I think, though, that too many posters here have these strong opinions about topics that pros don't agree with.
For example, the overemphasis given to slams to the point that time at number 1 is considered...

• TheFifthSet

• 

Post in thread 'Roddick states he wouldn't be able to beat the top players today.'

Jun 11, 2024

Good discussion with @ActualTennisPlayer and @TheFifthSet

Want to maybe clarify something. We discussed what it means to "know" about tennis and within that the difference between pros and fans

I think that we haven't been clear enough that the very definition of what it means to "know about tennis" is very different for pros. At TTW a lot of "knowing" involves historical references. That's mostly irrelevant for pros.

Pros need people around them that can help them improve their game. That includes people (one or more) who can correctly identify a pro's weaknesses...

• TheFifthSet

• 

I mean, maybe next time you don't pass your unpopular, biased opinion as some sort of objective truth

It’s not an objective truth, and it’s not even a super strongly-held opinion. For the umpteenth time I’ll reiterate that I think Raz’s forehand is close to Peak Djokovic’s, and you now know I think it’s better than current Djokovic’s.

I am amenable to persuasion, but you haven’t done a great job of arguing your point, and I maintain that prime-to-peak Djokovic had a slightly better forehand.

just because you're a veteran on TTW,

Much like with the ‘Thiem’ throwaway (still no receipts for that, or a concession), you’re just projecting your preconceptions on to this convo.

Stop doing that, please and thanks.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Well, about recent performances...

Yes he had a great forehand performance against Arthur Rinderknech, at Queens.

Fast forward a few matches and he wasn’t able to impose his forehand on a 38 year old that has won only 2 of his last 24 sets, on his best court, in a BO5.

He has skipped many of these. Here again, already catching up with the Big 3 on his worst surface and with a HC arguably ATG competitor as Sinner (and Oldovic too). Again, what was Roger early record on clay? And Rafa's early record on HC? And Djokovic early record overall?

Nadal’s early record on HC was quite comparable, but again you’re talking past me by not acknowledging the many elephants in the room: the fairly stark competition gap and that many people, including the “experts,” are already treating the current version of Alcaraz as an equal to TB3 at their best.

age-for-age, he compares favourably to Federer and Djokovic (though ‘08 Djokovic > any version of Alcaraz, by a small margin). Never said otherwise! Simply disagree with the implications of this, and all the gun-jumping.

What we can say, with some degree of certainty, is that Alcaraz has not yet exhibited an all-time great level of play on HC, the tour’s most dominant surface. Not on a consistent basis, at least.

Fair?

You're talking about his breaktrough as if that was the starting point for every's player prime.

The problem is that his RGW stats haven’t improved much since then and, more importantly, you were using matches from that time period (his early breakthrough) to make your case. They are now inadmissible, I gather?

Fine, 2025 then: 23.5 break % … or 2024: 22.9%.

Forget about peak Novak, this is below peak Fed.

Anyway, even counting an inexperienced player on grass as Carlitos. What is his early record on grass? I'll remind you again, already the best one in the Open Era. Sure, short sample as everything with him, but I don't see any signs of dropping much - on the contrary. It speaks better about his record his early breakthrough, not the other way around. And on clay? M*fcker won everything he played this season bar that Barcelona final because of injury. He's on a Big 3 run as of the recent months. He's 19-0, or 28-1 since March. I already told you about his natural surfaces records, right?

None of this engages with any argument I’ve made.

Yeah, he’s been an incredible player, for his age and overall, on natural surfaces. This was never in question.

He’s also had much worse competition en route to those wins than Fedal and Prime Novak (talking average run).

 

[TheFifthSet]

Excuse me, what heavy competition did Novak face in 2016 or 2023 RGs? What heavy competition did Roger face in 2009, or Nadal in 2018?

You need to get better at these gotchas.

I’ve long said I think Djokovic’s record on clay is greater than his actual ability, same with grass. I even said I would consider Federer (another favourite) the better grass courter if Djokovic won 9 Wimbledons.

What heavy competition did Murray or Roger face during 2016-17 at Wimbledon?

Poor competition, although Federer got through his with considerable aplomb, ceding 5 breaks in 7 matches.

Another “preaching to the choir” moment. Federer has won a handful of Wimbledon’s where the competition was very tough, and he didn’t need to get broken dozens of times along the way to do it, while breaking at the same rate Raz does.

Murray, one of the main subjects of the previous reply, had as a good a run on grass from ‘12-‘13 as Alcaraz the last two years, yet another indication you need a primer (or ‘lecture’) on the difference competition makes.

And Djokovic in 2021 or 2022?

TERRIBLE competition.

‘11, ‘14, ‘15, ‘18 were tough-to-very-tough.

‘19 was weak.

‘21 and ‘22 were TERRIBLE.

These are all things I’ve enthusiastically said many times lol.

Djokovic, though he’s vultured a ****ton (to beat a dead horse: never denied it!) also has at least a 5 year stretch of unbelievable numerical dominance (both in terms of tournament wins and match stats) against strong competition. Alcaraz hasn’t cleared that bar. He’s winning less and posting worse match stats. He’s not at the level Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were at their primes, when they were siphoning wins off each other yet still winning as much or more than Alcaraz (I am aware there wasn’t a perfect overlap, don’t go all concentric circles on me).

Heck you could argue even in 2018 he only had to surpass a struggling-on-grass (as he ever was lately in his career) Nadal.

If you watched that match you’d understand Nadal played terrifically. ‘18 Wimby and ‘25 RG are likely the two best, highest quality matches of the last 10 years.

So, that won’t do.

 

[abmk]

What heavy competition did Roger face in 2009,

RG 09. fed faced peak delpo who played actually better than he did in the USO final. just that fed was more clutch here.
fed also faced soderling who played some good tennis after a nervous 1st set. and before these 2 a deep draw of acusaso, PHM, haas and monfils.

peak delpo himself should be enough.

alcaraz has 0 slams where he faced competition of this level. yes, including RG 25 Sinner. delpo RG 09 was better and obviously the others make it a wide gulf

I like Alcaraz style of play, but he's faced very weak competition for most part and still come close to losing in every fricking slam he's won (all 5 of them), not to forget failure at every HC slam after USO 22.

Not when you've got Roger's for the start of his career to compare.

2000, 01, 03 crush alcaraz's competition and its not even close.
only 02 is comparable.

so just stop

 

[TheFifthSet]

There's stretches of lighter competition everytime.

There are also, ideally, stretches of very tough competition. Ideally.

Doesn't speak less about their champions.

It might, depending on which conclusion people look to draw from the wins themselves.

Sure, the Big 4 era was particularly tough. You could argue the 2009 field was stronger than ever with the likes of Delpo, Berdych, Verdasco and so on too.

But this is no weak era for Carlitos by any mean. Not when you've got Roger's for the start of his career to compare.

Federer had the greatest single-surface player ever to contend with on his weakest surface, and lost two important non-clay matches in 4 years.

In the first one (‘05 AO) he had a MP in the 4th, then got hosed on a line call in the 5th (at 5-5 15-30), all the while having blisters.

In the second one (‘05 TMC) he was wearing an ankle brace yet still came to within two points of winning.

These are not equivalent at all.

Carlitos has still needed to face Nadal on his very last stellar campaign (2022, just to remind you),

And lost to an injured Nadal on HC.

Novak on his (2023) and a rising co-star in Sinner (2024 to date). Also the likes of the lost gen still running including Meddy, Zverev or Ruud. And the americans in Fritz, Paul... plus rising stars too like Mussetti, Shelton, Draper, etc. Not ATG by any means but still decent enough players for any top 20 imo.

Some good players, yes.

Good enough to really test the resilience of an all-timer at their peak? I would say no, definitely not. Not to where Carlos is winning 1 out of every 6 hard court tournaments.

You mentioned he’s skipped a bunch…how would that make it better?

I mean, it's you downplaying your own idol if you think 2023 Wimbledon Novak with his streak on central court and the CYGS as objective was some kind of child's candy to take.

It wasn’t that. Great win. Great verve shown after the terrible start. Really gutsy, well-played 5th set.

That was, just to remind you, called a "passing of torch" (maybe prematurily so, but still symbolic) by almost anyone not blinded by the bias.

Djokovic won 4 of their next 5 matches. Some passing.

(Yes, I know you meant on grass. Still kind of funny.)

Murray never got such claims. He upseted the big guys sometimes,

He beat them 4 out of 7 times in BO5 at his best. Believe he played TB3 to a draw in tour matches that year.

he took his deserved spotlight and share of glory. But he never got to take over their legacy.

Indeed. He was a worse player and they were in their physical primes.

Btw, his h2h against them is dreadful, not better than Wawrinka's, especially vs Rafole.

I’ll repeat an old refrain: as opposed to what?

Alcaraz is 4-7 against worse versions of Nadal and Djokovic.

While he did get wrecked by Fed in big matches on quick surfaces (as I’d expect this version to Carlos to be), his H2H against him was a respectable 11-14.

Again, only counting for current accomplishments (at best, because you'll tell me 24 better players still, I'll be glad if you named them to me)

I said in the Top 25, not 25th.

Laver
Djokovic
Federer
Wilander
Nadal
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Edberg
Agassi
Becker
Connors
McEnroe
Newcombe
Courier (haha, YUP)

Ah, I overshot. Top 15-20 in the OE it is. If we’re including all of tennis history then probably not even Top 25.

and not projecting. Which is terribly short-sighted by you, because you're omitting the little, yet crutial fact that he's only 22 and probably the baby GOAT along with Nadal.

See above (this entire convo lol).

Lol, sure buddy.

You can coyly hint that I’m lying, but people here, if pressed, could probably confirm that I do in fact enjoy his game a lot. My relationship with Tiny is complicated:

a) he’s got such a beautiful game that I want him to be the player his proponents think he is.

b) he isn’t that player yet, and I don’t like giving false credit.

You'll tell me how much had Big 3 accomplished by 22.

Btw, you realize when you compare players to the Big 3 you don't necessarily got to compare them with their primes, right? You compare primes vs primes (for which we don't really got it for Sincaraz just yet) or just the early stretches of their careers. Oranges vs oranges.

You’ve already “put them up there” with the best versions of TB3, if not always explicitly:

Maybe (and just maybe) the Big 3 never had any sort of competition like these two guys

As well as liking posts calling him the GOAT.

At least I own everything I say lol. Don’t need to motte-and-bailey ya.

The average of the Big 3 was not prime Nadal on clay + prime Roger on grass + the clutchest version of Novak in 2011. It was more something like Roger in 2017 AO, Nadal in 2010 Wimbledon or Novak in 2023 USO. Because you've still worse versions of them.

Ah, I didn’t get there fast enough (see: circles, concentric).

You know what, I'm picking Alcaraz tiebreaks on the final set of Beijing 24 or RG 25 as his actual very peak version as to date. Good luck

shrugs, ok.

You sure those versions beat 37 y/o Djokovic in a tiebreak? On clay, let’s say?

Exactly.

I am almost certain you understood the point I was making (whether you disagree is another matter), and chose to skirt past it.

As opposed to Charlie negating Djokovic matching Roger's record on his most iconic tournament. I'd argue that was one of his most wanted goals of the late part of his career apart from the Olympic gold.
Maybe that was a bit of a stretch from my part.

Said in previous replies that this was one of his best matches.

Won't deny that was more of a subjective appreciation (not unique though), contrary to the rest of this post. Won't accept this one nevertheless:

Well, what do you disagree with in the post?

I’m more than happy to directly address every argument you make. Can guarantee you I won’t just ignore the ones that are inconvenient (cough, Elo, cough).

As well as much more loses. That's how stats work, right? You weigh at both sides of the balance and make conclusions. Carlitos is not short of legendary match-ups already despite his short career, as mentioned before. And the majority's perception is that Carlitos is already a greater player than him.

I know that’s the majority perception. That’s why I was arguing to the contrary to begin with.

You're free to think however you want. Just please, don't treat the "field" as fools. Like we didn't read through your condescending language or fake compliments ("oh I respect Carlitos, he's definitely a top 25 in the Open Era" kind of ********, no pun intended) despite the barriers (I'm Spanish myself).

Cheers

Your English and comprehension skills are fine dude. Think you just saw red on this topic.

I have been a little condescending to you after I saw you down-talking a bud. I try to play nice, and hope you stick around - more perspectives are welcomed, even if there’s disagreement. Wouldn’t be replying to you if the convo wasn’t worth having.

PD: Told you already Charlie is 14-1 on "TheFifthSet", right?

I’d hope so. If he had an average 5th set record he might be sitting on one slam. Also helps that many of his 5th set customers in big matches have been a diabetic guy, a much older man that no longer plays a full schedule, and Sinner who has been known to fade in longer matches (not ‘25 RG though, will give him that).

 

[TheFifthSet]

Here

Oh, forgot about this.

Yeah, how or why should that influence the convo we were having? Why should I have been expected to know about this?

Sure, there are people that underrate Alcaraz, too. They’re a minority. The poster you were replying to has been around in one form or another (lol) for over 15 years. He loves (and is very good at) rage-baiting.

 

[Jav]

Looking forward to it, professor.



I have my biases, but I somehow doubt they’ve surfaced here.



Do you really think I was arguing that the current iteration of Novak is a better mover?

I’ll disabuse you of that notion: I wasn’t. I think Alcaraz has had the better forehand since about the end of ‘23, and has been the better mover for much of their H2H.

I have honestly not much further to develope my case when you misinterpret my words that way (and yes, I don't think even prime Novak was close to what we've seen with Carlos movement; definitely not Federer either, but anyway) when I literally stated the following: "Since Novak has definitely declined on his pace (aka movement) throughout the years then he'll need to have improved, or at least he's more dependent on (...) shot selection to keep it competitive".

When I say "naturally gifted" I mean to compare it age by age, the way I've been doing since the first post, in case you don't get it yet.

Del Potro beat Federer 7 times and the only area he could hang was the FH. Berdych and Tsonga beat him 6 times despite trailing in just about every conceivable category. Tsitsipas had a 2-2 H2H against older Fed. Player are more than the sum of their parts.

You telling me Carlos only edges Novak and (naturally) wins him exclusively on *checks notes* net play? When in fact it's the later the one that usually approaches the net more in their h2hs? It's even funny how counterfactual your reasoning actually gets

Anywho, even if i DID believe it, I struggle to see how a 5-3 H2H (which could have been 6-2, or 7-1, with Djokovic coming off a lower-body injury in one of the losses) would render it silly.

Because we've seen much more unequal h2hs with "closer" in theory match ups (Sinner - Alcaraz, without going further). Btw Alcaraz also got injured in RG2023SF and we're still counting that, just to remind you. In fact if you saw that game you'd have seen Alcaraz was getting the momentum in his favor just before then.

Yes I was comparing him to a matured Novak, so roughly the ‘11-‘23 period.

Yeah that's you still missing the flaws of a comparison between a mature, yet still fit player (the GOAT on at least great part of his prime years, no less) and an inexpert young prospect since his breakthrough.

If it helps, I think a 21/22 y/o Nadal has a clearly better forehand.

Which speaks little about Novak's FH himself. And I know Roger's got the best serve, doesn't speak much about Nadal's serve being better or not than Carlitos' either.

He’s improved in some areas and heavily declined in others. A really big one for me is how he handles the opponents weight-of-shot, particularly on clay.

For that reason I’d say Alcaraz has had the better forehand on clay since maybe even 2022. He’s turned back the clock in some matches but on a match-in match-out basis, I simply do not trust it on the dirt as much as I used to.

That's you making some fake concesions in regards to the overwhelming evidence against your initial claims.

But again, this is a rabbit trail.


Powerful, yes.



Hard as it may be to believe, I’ve seen all of these links already. Probably before you have. Nothing new under the sun, as it were, and this is little more than a gish-gallop, lest we should start entertaining the idea that Ruud’s forehand is on a plane with Alcaraz’s because his pace+topsin numbers are close.

It's just a metric like any other. You have to look at them along with others for better insights.

But no, Ruud's FH is not weak by any means. It's his biggest weapon as well. No "gotchas" there as you like to say, ah?

As for “the metrics,” you are falsely holding to a view of unanimity among them, when there isn’t.

Tell me one thing you think there's a complete unanimity among tennis fans and I'll find you at least a hater who denies it.

There are consensus among relatively rational individuals though.

Career FHP/100 (edge Alcaraz, 8.3-7.9) and Per Match (edge Djokovic, 12.1-10.4) are two catch-all where they’re close. I imagine if we had yearly numbers they’d be close too.

Even in the Last 52, Djokovic and Alcaraz are right there with one another. Thoughts?

Of course, if we use such metrics as convo-enders then we probably have to conclude that Federer’s forehand is arguably worse than Djokovic’s something few reasonable folk believe.

Which is strange, because if anything, Fed's FH is much closer to Carlitos in characteristics, yet you're recognizing stats may mislead his against Novak's. But here it's you saying certain stats may benefit Charlie despite the eye test. See the inconsistency?

How long have you been following tennis?

Long enough, fortunately.

I don’t mean that as a dig. Genuinely somewhat curious, because you just cited one of its biggest lolcows. Wilander famously called ‘15 Djokovic the best he’s ever seen on clay, before the RG final. You gonna co-sign that one?

There's contextual claims and there's claims for their entire careers.

If I see the last RG final and like McEnroe, which is a known chatty, say something the likes of "I have never seen anyone play like this on clay, I think they'd even beat prime Nadal there" then yes, I think that's much of a stretch even as a Carlitos fan.

The other claim is not analogous in nature, not by the implications nor the source himself.

The previous one is reactive to a sole game. The later also takes into account historical performances like in Wimbledon, RG, the Olympics, etc. And it's definitely much more down-to-earth, as Novak's far from having a truly GOATed FH.

If you’d like to know where I stand on “the experts” (in sports, not STEM), I could go on for days but I’ll just link you old posts on the topic, so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from:

Thanks for some background, because you're expecting me to know them despite your account getting private, but ask me for certain parts of the conversations in this very same post like it was old History.

It’s not an objective truth, and it’s not even a super strongly-held opinion. For the umpteenth time I’ll reiterate that I think Raz’s forehand is close to Peak Djokovic’s, and you now know I think it’s better than current Djokovic’s.

I am amenable to persuasion, but you haven’t done a great job of arguing your point

No one would do, concerning certain immovable objects.

Much like with the ‘Thiem’ throwaway (still no receipts for that, or a concession), you’re just projecting your preconceptions on to this convo.

Stop doing that, please and thanks.

I'm not projecting much, contrary to your beliefs. I'm sticking to your claims that Novak (the average one) got a better FH and movement than (the averages of) Carlitos, that Carlitos is only a top 25 ATP (we'll get to that later) and that he's not really at the level of TB3's track record, historically speaking, or that Murray still edges him somehow. These are your claims, among others

Yes he had a great forehand performance against Arthur Rinderknech, at Queens.

Fast forward a few matches and he wasn’t able to impose his forehand on a 38 year old that has won only 2 of his last 24 sets, on his best court, in a BO5.

You play what you've got in front, it's not like you can face Sinner each time to prove yourself.

That being said, the guy just beat Zverev lol

About drops in level, yeah he's still a bit inmature, and happens to the very best. I mean, it's not like Novak himself won any of his Slams without dropping a set either, right? And he's got more than anyone.

Carlitos got an offensive style which naturally is more prone to errors. He usually drops or rises to the level of his opponent depending on the occasion. He'll fix that though. His highs are good enough for his floor not to rise.

Nadal’s early record on HC was quite comparable, but again you’re talking past me by not acknowledging the many elephants in the room: the fairly stark competition gap and that many people, including the “experts,” are already treating the current version of Alcaraz as an equal to TB3 at their best.

Who's projecting now?

About the competition gap, there's a bit of a myth there tbh, despite me already recognizing ATP in 2009 f.e. was probably the strongest ever. But if you think we're in a particular bump despite Sincaraz I may need to remind you a bit of tennis History.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I have honestly not much further to develope my case when you misinterpret my words that way (and yes, I don't think even prime Novak was close to what we've seen with Carlos movement

Well then Djokovic’s backhand must be doing a lot of work, seeing as, apparently, Peak Raz has the better movement, the better forehand, the better volleys, the better dropshot and yet still only breaks top players 21% of the time on HC while 2011-early 2016 broke at a whopping 32%.

definitely not Federer either, but anyway) when I literally stated the following: "Since Novak has definitely declined on his pace (aka movement) throughout the years then he'll need to have improved, or at least he's more dependent on (...) shot selection to keep it competitive".

Please keep track of the convo.

You linked a post where I favourably compared Djokovic’s movement to Alcaraz’s. You then mentioned this when trying to point out the absurdity of believing he could be a better mover, have a better fg etc yet still only lead the H2H 5-3.

I then clarified that I don’t believe Djokovic is a better mover anymore, just in period I had in mind when I made the post you linked. I wasn’t talking about what you believed. I’m correcting what you attributed to me.

How can I make this simpler?

 

[Jav]

I'd appreciate you abstain from replying before I've addressed all your points. Having some connection problems with the website with the local wifi as of recently. Thanks.

age-for-age, he compares favourably to Federer and Djokovic (though ‘08 Djokovic > any version of Alcaraz, by a small margin).

Another subtle, bold claim by you. I'm sorry.

Wimbledon or RG Alcaraz walks on any 08 version of Novak. He may got it on AO though. But current Alcaraz clearly beats him more often than not at the other 3.

I'll give it to you the feat of you building a perfect narrative to make your idols untouchable no matter what. It's the traditional manual, like Fed fans rising Roddick or Hewitt to ATG status, it's brilliant.

In your case you're still classifying Murray better than Sincaraz in your books. That way it may seem TB3 competition was stronger than it may have really been for most of its duration.

I mean, I already got a Fed fan arguing DelPo >> Sinner in last RG, despite the later not dropping a set and baggeling opposition left and right. I'll give it to him that differences may be not that much. But you build it through that reversing it so that you logically conclude things like Novak's FH > Carlitos'.

Never said otherwise! Simply disagree with the implications of this, and all the gun-jumping.

What we can say, with some degree of certainty, is that Alcaraz has not yet exhibited an all-time great level of play on HC, the tour’s most dominant surface. Not on a consistent basis, at least.

Fair?

Well, apart from USO 22 SFs and Beijing 2024 F, I could buy you that, at least on a consistent basis (not that many players showed two or more games on their worse surface worthy of TB3 levels though, especially before turning 22).

The problem is, you just never said only that lol

The problem is that his RGW stats haven’t improved much since then and, more importantly, you were using matches from that time period (his early breakthrough) to make your case. They are now inadmissible, I gather?

If you take it, and it seems you do, I take it. Otherwise we both dismiss it, no problem at all. The only problem is you sticking to prime Murray (12-13) or dismissing TB3 for large chunks of their careers though.

The Carlitos comparisons will always have the age bias until proven he declines, anyway.

Fine, 2025 then: 23.5 break % … or 2024: 22.9%.

Forget about peak Novak, this is below peak Fed.

Idk where you're getting these numbers.

According to ATP it's 31% of career breaks and 34% in 2025. Which is logical considering he's more of a natural returner than server.

Compare that to Sinner's f.e. 28% and 31%, respectively.

For Novak it's 32% in career or 30% in 2008 (for retrospective, you know).

For Federer it's 27% historically or 32% in 2006 on arguably his prime (again, comprehensible).

Do I have to fact-check you now as well?

He’s also had much worse competition en route to those wins than Fedal and Prime Novak (talking average run).

That's you downplaying him the way Novak fans downplay Roger early merits or the later Novak's ones.

I'd argue to you neither of them faced any players at all (apart from maybe Fedal in Novak's 2016-23 case, especially after Roger's decline past 2019) at the level of actual Sinner.

So the average is definitely not that one you wanna make. If weak overall competition apart from Sincaraz confirms for the next 10+ years then you'll have a point. But here again, Carlitos has only been 3 years on tour. In the first he had to face a resurgent Nadal, in the later a resurgent Novak and in the later a surgent slightly more mature co-star, having to defeat the later two more than once in all of his GS paths. THAT is his average to date (he had no 2016-17 Wimbledon walks in his count). And that is no easy feat no matter how you dismiss it.

I’ve long said I think Djokovic’s record on clay supersedes his actual ability, same with grass. I even said I would consider Federer (another favourite) the better grass courter if Djokovic won 9 Wimbledons.

Yet you're still dismissing them, as well as Murray's clay record, but focusing on Charlie's on HC to dismiss the idea of him being close to TB3 levels just yet.

It might, depending on which conclusion people look to draw from the wins themselves.

That's people's problem you'd like to think. I certainly value one more GS over any "tough competition" trophy. Maybe only as a "tiebreaker", M1000s aside?

Federer had the greatest single-surface player ever to contend with on his weakest surface, and lost two important non-clay matches in 4 years.

Only after 2005. Almost the equivalent of Charlie's present season. You think the Roger's early "weak era" arguments apply to Nadal as a rival?

In the first one (‘05 AO) he had a MP in the 4th, then got hosed on a line call in the 5th (at 5-5 15-30), all the while having blisters.
In the second one (‘05 TMC) he was wearing an ankle brace yet still came to within two points of winning.
These are not equivalent at all.

Don't know why you bring these but sounds like a "skill issue" to me (see the memes).



Are we discarding the clutch factor for ATG debates now, in tennis among all sports? Because then you'd have a claim for Roger as GOAT just yet. "If if if"

And lost to an injured Nadal on HC.

We don't recall that match exactly the same. Nadal benefited from windy conditions. But tell me, who didn't lose to Nadal that year? It was their very second encounter fgs and it was a close match, give the child some break.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Tell me one thing you think there's a complete unanimity among tennis fans and I'll find you at least a hater who denies it.

It's like I'm getting punk'd here.

We're talking about "metrics." YOU said "every metric is against you." Not me. You.

My response was "no, they are not, here are [a few]."

What do you not get?

You telling me Carlos only edges Novak and (naturally) wins him exclusively on *checks notes* net play? When in fact it's the later the one that usually approaches the net more in their h2hs? It's even funny how counterfactual your reasoning actually gets

Are we talking about the H2H, and their current iterations, or not?

Because if we're talking about how they're currently constructed then i'd say Alcaraz has a better net game, better forehand (for part of it), better movement, better drop shots, better first serve return.

Because we've seen much more unequal h2hs with "closer" in theory match ups (Sinner - Alcaraz, without going further).

Yes so we agree that stroke-for-stroke tallies aren't the final word on how a H2H plays out. Thanks dude.

Btw Alcaraz also got injured in RG2023SF and we're still counting that,

Those were, by his own admission, nerves which caused cramping.

Yeah that's you still missing the flaws of a comparison between a mature, yet still fit player (the GOAT on at least great part of his prime years, no less) and an inexpert young prospect since his breakthrough.

You are again talking past me. If that's as far as you're willing to go ("it's not fair because Carlos isn't a finished product"), sure no problem. But it's not. You and much of your ilk wanna have your cake and eat it too.

Which speaks little about Novak's FH himself.

Never said it did.

That's you making some fake concesions in regards to the overwhelming evidence against your initial claims.

Which concession, which claim, what overwhelming evidence?

It's just a metric like any other. You have to look at them along with others for better insights.

You don't have any insights. You linked a few posts of other people's words/quotes and didn't elaborate on their significance.

But no, Ruud's FH is not weak by any means.

With quotes, please show me where I called it weak. This wasn't my argument, so it can be discarded.

There are consensus among relatively rational individuals though.

Yes.

Which is strange, because if anything, Fed's FH is much closer to Carlitos in characteristics, yet you're recognizing stats may mislead his against Novak's. But here it's you saying certain stats may benefit Charlie despite the eye test. See the inconsistency?

There's no inconsistency at all.

You are the one that mentioned forehand metrics (the ones which favour your argument, or ostensibly do). I subjected this to an internal critique, and then gave some metrics which don't favour your argument.

Throughout it all, I've maintained that no "one" stat will be sufficient. This applies both when you gish-gallpo me with pace+spin leaderboards AND when I mention their fhp/match and fhp/100 rates.

But, importantly, you are the one that invoked forehand statistics first. So: which ones matter? Which ones don't? Why did you say """all""" the metrics support your claim, when they don't?

There's contextual claims and there's claims for their entire careers.

If I see the last RG final and like McEnroe, which is a known chatty, say something the likes of "I have never seen anyone play like this on clay, I think they'd even beat prime Nadal there" then yes, I think that's much of a stretch even as a Carlitos fan.

The other claim is not analogous in nature, not by the implications nor the source himself.

The previous one is reactive to a sole game. The later also takes into account historical performances like in Wimbledon, RG, the Olympics, etc. And it's definitely much more down-to-earth, as Novak's far from having a truly GOATed FH.

Wow that's an impressive amount of twisting.

Thanks for some background, because you're expecting me to know them despite your account getting private,

I was NOT expecting you to know that; where did I say this? I meant what i explicitly said: I'm sending you a series of posts i made on the matter so that you know what my opinion is, to better-inform our discussion. No hidden meaning. No expectations mounted on you.

but ask me for certain parts of the conversations in this very same post like it was old History.

Because you took it upon yourself to mention things irrelevant to our conversation. I sent you posts that are directly relevant to the talking point in question.

No one would do, concerning certain immovable objects.

This doesn't even make sense. If i felt the hierarchy of their forehands were an immovable object, why would i say they're close?

I'm not projecting much, contrary to your beliefs. I'm sticking to your claims that Novak (the average one) got a better FH and movement than (the averages of) Carlitos, that Carlitos is only a top 25 ATP (we'll get to that later) and that he's not really at the level of TB3's track record, historically speaking, or that Murray still edges him somehow. These are your claims, among others

Yes these are my claims.

You play what you've got in front, it's not like you can face Sinner each time to prove yourself.

Yes, you do. All titles count the same numerically, but not all the same conclusions follow from all the same titles. This is a banal statement that's self-evidently true.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Idk where you're getting these numbers.

According to ATP it's 31% of career breaks and 34% in 2025. Which is logical considering he's more of a natural returner than server.

Compare that to Sinner's f.e. 28% and 31%, respectively.

For Novak it's 32% in career or 30% in 2008 (for retrospective, you know).

For Federer it's 27% historically or 32% in 2006 on arguably his prime (again, comprehensible).

Do I have to fact-check you now as well?

Sigh.

Here, from the post you quoted:

fact is that Djokovic broke Top 10 opponents roughly 30% of the time in the tour’s dominant surface over a really robust sample! Alcaraz is at 21% since his breakthrough. And that’s against a much less top-heavy Top 10.

It's a continuation of the sub-convo we were having. From. The post. You quoted. I didn't think i needed to clarify that I was talking about Top 10 break rates on HC because you were responding to a passage where I referenced it.

Is everything alright?

 

[TheFifthSet]

That being said, the guy just beat Zverev lol

Yeah, he had a great performance against him in Queens.

And? Flesh out your point.

About drops in level, yeah he's still a bit inmature, and happens to the very best. I mean, it's not like Novak himself won any of his Slams without dropping a set either, right? And he's got more than anyone.

Carlitos got an offensive style which naturally is more prone to errors. He usually drops or rises to the level of his opponent depending on the occasion. He'll fix that though. His highs are good enough for his floor not to rise.

Right, consistency needs work, lots of downs, but still a great player. Sort of like Prime Murray. No shame in that.

Who's projecting now?

About the competition gap, there's a bit of a myth there

Go on.

 

[Jav]

Some good players, yes.

Good enough to really test the resilience of an all-timer at their peak? I would say no, definitely not. Not to where Carlos is winning 1 out of every 6 hard court tournaments.

Honestly ignored weak eras were classified by the resilience against ATG on their primes. Guess the 04-08 field failed on that regard, as well as the 10-11, 17-19 (not even on their primes anymore) etc

Never said "strong era". Only "not particularly weak". Seems you get a bit lost with the concept of average and some relativistic terms.

You mentioned he’s skipped a bunch…how would that make it better?

Success rate?

It wasn’t that. Great win. Great verve shown after the terrible start. Really gutsy, well-played 5th set.

Djokovic won 4 of their next 5 matches. Some passing.

(Yes, I know you meant on grass. Still kind of funny.)

That's why I say "maybe prematurily so". Yet people still consider that a symbolic moment in retrospective.

You seem to read only what you're interested on though.

He beat them 4 out of 7 times in BO5 at his best. Believe he played TB3 to a draw in tour matches that year.

Again, sticking to prime Murray and discarding most of his career. For whatever reason.

Indeed. He was a worse player and they were in their physical primes.



I’ll repeat an old refrain: as opposed to what?

Alcaraz is 4-7 against worse versions of Nadal and Djokovic.

As opposed to what you'd expect from a player whose prime you still rate above Sincaraz' (whatever that is, yet to be seen).

I said in the Top 25, not 25th.

If you had him 15th you'd have said Top 15.

Why are you stubbornly negating your bold claims even just immediately before you reject them yourself? Don't you know it makes you seem more biased than you already are?

Laver
Djokovic
Federer
Wilander
Nadal
Sampras
Borg
Lendl
Edberg
Agassi
Becker
Connors
McEnroe
Newcombe
Courier (haha, YUP)

Ah, I overshot. Top 15-20 in the OE it is. If we’re including all of tennis history then probably not even Top 25.

Oh no ****.

Anyway, good attempt at excluding him from the top 15.

Thanks for the condescending "haha, yep" but I'd still rate him above Newcombe, Mourier, Laver (as far as OE goes: OE ranking you know) and also Connors. That would place him just 12th

YUP, haha

Btw, you forgot Murray there? I mean, according to your own claims.

Or maybe you've made your mind right, even if subconsciously, Idk.

See above (this entire convo lol).

If you're talking about the tier list none of them bar the already mentioned Nadal were close as a prospect to Carlitos, hence my baby GOAT claim stands.

You can coyly hint that I’m lying, but people here, if pressed, could probably confirm that I do in fact enjoy his game a lot. My relationship with Tiny is complicated:

a) he’s got such a beautiful game that I want him to be the player his proponents think he is.

b) he isn’t that player yet, and I don’t like giving false credit.



You’ve already “put them up there” with the best versions of TB3, if not always explicitly:

I rest my case TB3 never faced a competition as Sincaraz. That's not even unpopular.

As well as liking posts calling him the GOAT.

"Carlos might be the GOAT"

What problem do you got with that statement and me liking it?

Rest assured that's a very closer possibility than classifying Carlitos only among the top 25 of this era.

At least I own everything I say lol. Don’t need to motte-and-bailey ya.


Ah, I didn’t get there fast enough (see: circles, concentric).

You tell me.

shrugs, ok.

ou sure those versions beat 37 y/o Djokovic in a tiebreak? On clay, let’s say?

Yes. Carlitos underperformed in that tie-break and the whole match to an extent. Novak greatly overperformed and barely beat him in both. Kudos to him.

But Novak himself knows that game was always on Carlitos racket (and feets). Oldovic could never cope with Carlitos god mode in both of his tiebreaks with Sinner.

That's my appreciation and you may have a different one. Fine.

I am almost certain you understood the point I was making (whether you disagree is another matter), and chose to skirt past it.

I'm almost certain you chose to skirt past the reason people hasn't Murray at the GOAT debate nor even the ATG lists maybe because you're overrating him a bit there, with all due respect to the Scottish. Not because some biased discrimination or whatever you're implying here.

Said in previous replies that this was one of his best matches.

You don't seem to give him enough credit for that, considering you're dismissing his natural surface merits in favor of the HC stats.

Note I don't dismiss these, because I'm mostly taking his career stats as a whole, or by periods at most.

Well, what do you disagree with in the post?

I’m more than happy to directly address every argument you make. Can guarantee you I won’t just ignore the ones that are inconvenient (cough, Elo, cough).

There you go

I know that’s the majority perception. That’s why I was arguing to the contrary to begin with.

Thanks for recognizing it, I guess.

Your English and comprehension skills are fine dude. Think you just saw red on this topic.

I have been a little condescending to you after I saw you down-talking a bud. I try to play nice, and hope you stick around - more perspectives are welcomed, even if there’s disagreement. Wouldn’t be replying to you if the convo wasn’t worth having.

No problem with discussions at all, on the contrary.

I just like an honest debate, that's all. We all have our biases but there's no need to tricky use of language or fake compliments if we don't really mean them.

I’d hope so. If he had an average 5th set record he might be sitting on one slam. Also helps that many of his 5th set customers in big matches have been a diabetic guy, a much older man that no longer plays a full schedule, and Sinner who has been known to fade in longer matches (not ‘25 RG though, will give him that).

Guess in Novak's case also helps being younger than the other two.

We can all make excuses for everybody. Doesn't deny the facts.

 

[Jav]

Well then Djokovic’s backhand must be doing a lot of work, seeing as, apparently, Peak Raz has the better movement, the better forehand, the better volleys, the better dropshot and yet still only breaks top players 21% of the time on HC while 2011-early 2016 broke at a whopping 32%.

Never argued these. Don't project your logical thinking on others. It's you who argued Carlitos only edges on the net play. It's you who should explain why and how.

Still focusing on HC as if we didn't see you. Already passed you the official break % figures, don't go that way.

Please keep track of the convo.

You linked a post where I favourably compared Djokovic’s movement to Alcaraz’s. You then mentioned this when trying to point outthe absurdity of believing he could be a better mover, have a better fg etc yet still only lead the H2H 5-3.

Yes.

I then clarified that I don’t believe Djokovic is a better mover anymore, just in period I had in mind when I made the post you linked. I wasn’t talking about what you believed. I’m correcting what you attributed to me.

Bold of me to assume the use of bold type wouldn't trick you into thinking I thought you argued Novak's got a better movement as of today, especially considering my literal words on why that should not be longer the case even if that was once the case which, in case you missed it, I don't even consider to be the case ever (sorry for the redundancy).

How can I make this simpler?

Don't worry, it's not me misinterpreting you by any means, despite the language barriers. I'll excuse if my writing skills are not good enough though. That, may introduce some misleading.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I'd appreciate you abstain from replying before I've addressed all your points. Having some connection problems with the website with the local wifi as of recently. Thanks.

Sorry, skimmed to a random section and that was the first thing i saw lol.

I'm sorry.

Wimbledon or RG Alcaraz walks on any 08 version of Novak. He may got it on AO though. But current Alcaraz clearly beats him more often than not at the other 3.

Wimbledon, yes. AO and USO, no.

RG, toss-up. Djokovic won Rome, pushed Nadal at Hamburg, was the only guy to give the best version of him a somewhat competitive match at RG, won the YEC, performed comparably at the Olympics and comparably (better) in the Masters.

I'll give it to you the feat of you building a perfect narrative to make your idols untouchable

No narrative required, went through their entire years, tell me where you disagree.

it's brilliant.

Thank you.

In your case you're still classifying Murray better than Sincaraz in your books. That way it may seem TB3 competition was stronger than it may have really been for most of its duration.

Ya, u got me

I mean, I already got a Fed fan arguing DelPo >> Sinner in last RG, despite the later not dropping a set and baggeling opposition left and right. I'll give it to him that differences may be not that much. But you build it through that reversing it so that you logically conclude things like Novak's FH > Carlitos'.

What I said was, actually, that the prime version of Novak's forehand is close to Alcy's at 21/22, when he might not be at his peak yet (though it didn't preclude Nadal from reaching his fh peak at that age).

This you take as some really damning criticism? Well alrighty.

Well, apart from USO 22 SFs and Beijing 2024 F, I could buy you that, at least on a consistent basis (not that many players showed two or more games on their worse surface worthy of TB3 levels though, especially before turning 22).

This needs to be untangled.

The problem is, you just never said only that lol

I didn't think i needed to. You're the one downplaying the importance of the hardcourt H2H...that's how that discussion began. My response was that even if you omit the H2H and just wipe the tournies from the record, what's left isn't that great: 6 out of 29 wins since '22 IW. That's the most favourable time-range for Raz.

In reality, him and Babydal are close even on HC.

If you take it, and it seems you do, I take it. Otherwise we both dismiss it, no problem at all. The only problem is you sticking to prime Murray (12-13) or dismissing TB3 for large chunks of their careers though.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. I have an inkling but I'm guessing you misunderstood the point you were responding to.

I'd argue to you neither of them faced any players at all (apart from maybe Fedal in Novak's 2016-23 case, especially after Roger's decline past 2019) at the level of actual Sinner.

Yeah '16-'23 was a weak period too...100 times yes...agreed.

So the average is definitely not that one you wanna make.

Ok. Make an argument then, I guess.

If weak overall competition apart from Sincaraz confirms for the next 10+ years then you'll have a point. But here again, Carlitos has only been 3 years on tour.

And they're great players. Not GOAT-level players (level-wise), of yet. That they are being put on that pedestal is unfair to the players that deserve to be.

In the first he had to face a resurgent Nadal, in the later a resurgent Novak and in the later a surgent slightly more mature co-star, having to defeat the later two more than once in all of his GS paths. THAT is his average to date (he had no 2016-17 Wimbledon walks in his count). And that is no easy feat no matter how you dismiss it.

I don't think you even know what you're comparing it to at this point.

Yet you're still dismissing them, as well as Murray's clay record, but focusing on Charlie's on HC to dismiss the idea of him being close to TB3 levels just yet.

Hards are the predominant surface on tour. Clay isn't, and none of Carlos' current clay exploits would've amounted to much if pitted against Prime Nadal (something him and Murray actually have in common).

Another thing in common is that i dismiss both of them being close to TB3, though Carlos has a little more time to leave his mark on that comparison.

That's people's problem you'd like to think. I certainly value one more GS over any "tough competition" trophy. Maybe only as a "tiebreaker", M1000s aside?

Fair enough, here we just disagree and probably can't be swayed. For me it's very easy to imagine a world where (just as an example, not a direct comparison to Sinneraz's slam paths) the real-life Murray wins something like 5-8 majors from '11-'13, absent TB3 (pretend they got suspended). That it can even be plausibly imagined shows how much of a determinant top-end competition is. That Murray is no greater a player, in my eyes.

Only after 2005.

'05, '06, '07. Those are three of the four years generally accepted as Federer's peak, where Nadal played like an all-timer on Fed's worst surface.

Don't know why you bring these but sounds like a "skill issue" to me (see the memes).

I bring them up to make clear that he lost two big matches on his favourite surfaces in four years, and both of those were extremely close, which adds to how extremely impressive that run was.

Are we discarding the clutch factor for ATG debates now, in tennis among all sports?

Total non sequitur

We don't recall that match exactly the same. Nadal benefited from windy conditions.

He had a lingering foot injury that plagued him in the tournament, which he talked about in the matches leading up to the Raz encounter.

But tell me, who didn't lose to Nadal that year? It was their very second encounter fgs and it was a close match, give the child some break.

Then don't omit the context of Nadal's injury or, at a minimum, acknowledge that Murray played most of his matches against primes versions of Djokovic and Nadal

 

[Jav]

It's a continuation of the sub-convo we were having. From. The post. You quoted. I didn't think i needed to clarify that I was talking about Top 10 break rates on HC because you were responding to a passage where I referenced it.

Is everything alright?

If that was the case why are you using it when we're not talking HC performance at all?

For GOAT status, TB3 levels and so on, you take career stats or particular season stats at most. I've already made that clear enough I think, particular surface comparisons are only useful if we later take the rest to compare as well.

I've not even found a reference of you to their W % on grass or clay just yet, despite me already passing you data of why Alcaraz was catching up to Nadal's average on HC already. Which speaks about our biases, don't you agree?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Honestly ignored weak eras were classified by the resilience against ATG on their primes. Guess the 04-08 field failed on that regard, as well as the 10-11, 17-19 (not even on their primes anymore) etc

I have no idea what this even means. I know what the words mean, individually. But I don’t know what you’re responding to exactly.

Never said "strong era". Only "not particularly weak". Seems you get a bit lost with the concept of average and some relativistic terms.

See above.

Success rate?

How does that follow? A lot of these tournaments were missed due to injury.

That's why I say "maybe prematurily so". Yet people still consider that a symbolic moment in retrospective.

So it was maybe prematurely called a passing of the torch by people not blinded by bias, but then Novak won 4 of the next 5 matches. Glad that’s settled.

Again, sticking to prime Murray and discarding most of his career. For whatever reason.

This was already explained.

As opposed to what you'd expect from a player whose prime you still rate above Sincaraz' (whatever that is, yet to be seen).

How?

If you had him 15th you'd have said Top 15.

I said I overshot it. I underestimated him in my head when I made the comment, and then corrected it.

I don’t get what you’re complaining about here. I’m admitting I made a mistake.

Why are you stubbornly negating your bold claims even just immediately before you reject them yourself? Don't you know it makes you seem more biased than you already are?

…?!?!?!?!?!

Here, I’ll break it down, in steps:

- I originally pegged him as a Top 25 player in the OE, off the top of my head
- I realized, in my subsequent reply, that I overestimated how many people I felt were above him.
- I amended this by saying he’s more like a Top 15-20 player in the OE, not Top 25
- I bookended it by saying he is probably NOT a Top 25 player in tennis history (i.e, not just the OE).

Oh no ****.

Anyway, good attempt at excluding him from the top 15.

Thanks for the condescending "haha, yep" but I'd still rate him above Newcombe, Mourier, Laver (as far as OE goes: OE ranking you know) and also Connors. That would place him just 12th

Well, fair enough. Disagree, but it’s your opinion.

Btw, you forgot Murray there? I mean, according to your own claims.

Oh okay thanks. Yeah, I guess it wasn’t an exhaustive list. I’ll edit the post later.

Or maybe you've made your mind right, even if subconsciously, Idk.

Could be.

If you're talking about the tier list none of them bar the already mentioned Nadal were close as a prospect to Carlitos, hence my baby GOAT claim stands.

Becker was actually quite close lol. But yeah no new ground to tread.

I rest my case TB3 never faced a competition as Sincaraz. That's not even unpopular.

Then you already believe they’re better at them at their peaks, I gather?

"Carlos might be the GOAT"

What problem do you got with that statement and me liking it?

No problem, other than you having one foot in and one foot out.

Rest assured that's a very closer possibility than classifying Carlitos only among the top 25 of this era.

Oh okay.

Yes. Carlitos underperformed in that tie-break and the whole match to an extent. Novak greatly overperformed and barely beat him in both. Kudos to him.

He played a pretty good match, but the whole thing is kind of silly because my comment was a joke.

But Novak himself knows that game was always on Carlitos racket (and feets). Oldovic could never cope with Carlitos god mode in both of his tiebreaks with Sinner.

Oh, okay.

I'm almost certain you chose to skirt past the reason people hasn't Murray at the GOAT debate nor even the ATG lists maybe because you're overrating him a bit there, with all due respect to the Scottish. Not because some biased discrimination or whatever you're implying here.

?

You don't seem to give him enough credit for that, considering you're dismissing his natural surface merits in favor of the HC stats.

?

There you go

I meant the arguments I made involving Elo. The ones you never responded to

 

[abmk]

Wimbledon or RG Alcaraz walks on any 08 version of Novak. He may got it on AO though. But current Alcaraz clearly beats him more often than not at the other 3.

2008 USO djoko is a level above USO 22 alcaraz. Lets not even bring in 2023/24 USO alcaraz or AO 24/25 Alcaraz, LOL.

2008 djoko at RG is comparable to alcaraz at RG 24/25. alcaraz has the edge in stamina, that's it. walks? LOL.

while alcz Wim 23/24 obv better than djoko Wim 08, if Alcaraz faced 2008 Safin at Wim in an early round, he's also sent packing.

and obviously 2008 YEC djokovic >> any version of alcaraz there

got it on AO? 08 AO djoko would absolutely smash any version of Alcaraz there. Alcaraz didn't even handle old, ancient djokovic there.

In your case you're still classifying Murray better than Sincaraz in your books. That way it may seem TB3 competition was stronger than it may have really been for most of its duration.

yeah, prime Murray is better than Alcaraz at AO, Wim, USO and YEC. so?

Edit: If stating stuff as it is a problem, that's yours. Alcaraz should play one Wimbledon or USO well from start to finish (with max 1 hiccup). and get to a fricking semi at the AO.
I like alcaraz style, but overblowing of his level is just silly.

for example: play at WIm 23 level before final and WIm 24 level in final for one run. Murray did that in Wim 12, WIm 16, USO 12 (and WIm 13 with one hiccup vs dasco)

prime Murray would tear apart Wim 23 djoko, losing 1 set tops. and wouldn't get broken 20 times like Alcaraz in Wim 24.
and at USO 12 or even 08, wouldn't have to go 5 sets vs tiafoe+old cilic, not to forget be in danger of going down 2 sets to 1 vs ruud.

I mean, I already got a Fed fan arguing DelPo >> Sinner in last RG, despite the later not dropping a set and baggeling opposition left and right. I'll give it to him that differences may be not that much.

that's not what I said. I said Delpo in RG 09 was better, not much better. Quote so you don't misinterpret what others say.

"alcaraz has 0 slams where he faced competition of this level. yes, including RG 25 Sinner. delpo RG 09 was better and obviously the others make it a wide gulf"

 

[TheFifthSet]

Never argued these. Don't project your logical thinking on others. It's you who argued Carlitos only edges on the net play. It's you who should explain why and how.

The point is that you believe Alcaraz has a better forehand, movement, net game and drop shots than the best version of Djokovic.

Despite this, the best version of Djokovic won about 32% of his return games against the Top 10 on HC over his best 5 year period.

Alcaraz has won about 21% since becoming a contending player, and never more than 24% in a single year.

What explains this? The different in backhand quality does, sufficiently? Or?

Still focusing on HC as if we didn't see you. Already passed you the official break % figures, don't go that way.

it’s really easy to say “sorry, i got it wrong.”

You tried to “fact-check” me because you didn’t remember what we were talking about. It happens, but what’s the use in acting like you didn’t?

Bold of me to assume the use of bold type wouldn't trick you into thinking I thought you argued Novak's got a better movement as of today, especially considering my literal words on why that should not be longer the case even if that was once the case which, in case you missed it, I don't even consider to be the case ever (sorry for the redundancy).



Don't worry, it's not me misinterpreting you by any means, despite the language barriers. I'll excuse if my writing skills are not good enough though. That, may introduce some misleading.

Again, I’ll try to break it down in bullet points and see if we make headway. Here was the original quote bubble:

You specified here Djokovic naturally edges Alcaraz in these key aspects: FH, BH, serve, movement and ROS. Only leaving the net game in Charlie's favor (not even there he leads though). How is their h2h just 5-3, then?

Within that quote bubble, you:

- highlighted categories I felt Djokovic led in.
- linked the post where I went over each category.
- then cited their H2H, which has taken place over the last 3+ years, as a response to me listing those advantages, many of which you disagreed with.
- I then clarified that i mostly wasn’t talking about the Djokovic that contested their rivalry. That’s not who I was comparing Alcaraz unfavourably to.

 

[TheFifthSet]

If that was the case why are you using it when we're not talking HC performance at all?

We were. You just seemed to forget we were, mid-convo.

Me:

He has still only won 6 out of 29 HC tournaments since breaking through at ‘22 IW.

You:

He has skipped many of these. Here again, already catching up with the Big 3 on his worst surface and with a HC arguably ATG competitor as Sinner (and Oldovic too). Again, what was Roger early record on clay? And Rafa's early record on HC? And Djokovic early record overall?

You're talking about his breaktrough as if that was the starting point for every's player prime. It's like taking Sinner's stats post-puke, even if we definitely already knew him from prior.

^That’s how we got here!

I get it, it’s a long, tedious convo. There’s nothing wrong with occasionally losing track. Just cop to it, LOL.

Your English is alright. It’s not primarily a language barrier. You’re mostly just a very stubborn dude.

 

[Jav]

Right, consistency needs work, lots of downs, but still a great player. Sort of like Prime Murray. No shame in that.

I thought, if anything, Murray, even prime Murray is the epitome of consistency. Not peak level.

But to each their own.

2008 USO djoko is a level above USO 22 alcaraz. Lets not even bring in 2023/24 USO alcaraz or AO 24/25 Alcaraz, LOL.

If 2025 clay/grass season served as a comparison to his HC performance relative to his natural season in past years, then I definitely expect a stronger Carlitos in the USO25. Last season we got the Olympics post-slamp. But we've got Beijing from past season to know his true recent HC potential level. Anyway, remains to be seen. Maybe 50/50 on the USO or even Novak as slight favorite.

But if you overrate baby Novak on clay despite what we saw as this:

2008 djoko at RG is comparable to alcaraz at RG 24/25. alcaraz has the edge in stamina, that's it. walks? LOL.

Then maybe I'll need to clarify that Charlie's chances on natural over 08 Novak >>> That of Novak's over Charlie on HC.

And I just passed the break % before just to refresh your memory. It's perfect we've just had a 2 day conversation already to base our claims on actual data, right?

Charlie's historical, not even 2025's is already higher than that of 08's Novak.

Naturally Novak, even the young one is a bit of a better server, but we aren't comparing all their stats, right? Only what @TheFifthSet prefers to pick to favour TB3, even when in reality they really do not.

while alcz Wim 23/24 obv better than djoko Wim 08, if Alcaraz faced 2008 Safin at Wim in an early round, he's also sent packing.

Hahahahahahahhahahhahahaha okay I'll give you that Alcaraz is a bit vulnerable on early rounds. Especially after coming from winning RG in a historical 5 setter you know

and obviously 2008 YEC djokovic >> any version of alcaraz there

Happens when you're a hard court specialist.

Don't forget to call for the traditional Ferrero's firing after this season, even if Carlitos won this next USO but lost the AO.

yeah, prime Murray is better than Alcaraz at AO, Wim, USO and YEC. so?

I respect your biased, flawed opinion on this.

That's not what I said. I said Delpo in RG 09 was better, not much better. Quote so you don't misinterpret what others say.

And you misinterpreted my words.

I just said you called him better. I call him definitely worse, even if somehow close. Just that you base your claims on close, but unpopular and definitely dubious calls and build from that to basically downplay Carlitos achievements.

"alcaraz has 0 slams where he faced competition of this level. yes, including RG 25 Sinner. delpo RG 09 was better and obviously the others make it a wide gulf"

Don't know what you're pointing out here. I stand by this.

 

[Jono123]

Murray was never great to begin with.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray is top 5/6 player in 2000s. He was top 4 before rise of sineraz.

To say that he was not great at all just shows total lack of tennis knowledge. We can say he was never best talent because he had Federer or Djokovic or nadal ahead while acknowledging that these three are top 10 maybe top 5 of all time men's players.

But to say Murray was never great at all shows ignorance , either deliberate or actual.

 

[abmk]

If 2025 clay/grass season served as a comparison to his HC performance relative to his natural season in past years, then I definitely expect a stronger Carlitos in the USO25. Last season we got the Olympics post-slamp. But we've got Beijing from past season to know his true recent HC potential level. Anyway, remains to be seen. Maybe 50/50 on the USO or even Novak as slight favorite.

I'm talking based on what has happened already. USO 08 djoko is a level above USO 22 alcaraz. 23 USO/24 USO alcaraz is not even in the picture.

But if you overrate baby Novak on clay despite what we saw as this:

Djokovic won Rome in 08, played peak nadal tough in Hamburg and only one close to taking a set vs peak nadal in RG (and lost to prime fed in MC).
in which world am I over-rating 08 djoko on clay?

and 08 is not baby djokovic. its prime-ish djoko. prime level in several parts/matches of the season

Then maybe I'll need to clarify that Charlie's chances on natural over 08 Novak >>> That of Novak's over Charlie on HC.

LOL, no.

AO 08 djoko >>>>> AO 25 alcaraz
USO 08 djoko >>>> USO 24 24 alcaraz (since that's the latest info we have)

the only thing alcaraz has a big edge on is Wim, not clay/RG

so djoko's edge on HC is significantly more

And I just passed the break % before just to refresh your memory. It's perfect we've just had a 2 day conversation already to base our claims on actual data, right?

Charlie's historical, not even 2025's is already higher than that of 08's Novak.

Naturally Novak, even the young one is a bit of a better server, but we aren't comparing all their stats, right? Only what @TheFifthSet prefers to pick to favour TB3, even when in reality they really do not.

I am not sure what you mean by the break% part here. if you mean their stats in years 08 and 25, competition in 08 was way tougher and deeper in 08 than in 25

Hahahahahahahhahahhahahaha okay I'll give you that Alcaraz is a bit vulnerable on early rounds. Especially after coming from winning RG in a historical 5 setter you know

but no leeway to djokovic, right? though he did play well in Queens before Wimbledon.
and even without a historical 5-setter, there is a decent chance alcaraz gets upset by safin playing like that.

Happens when you're a hard court specialist.

and your statements happen when you haven't watched tennis in the past. djoko was very good on clay in 08. played well in queens 08 too.

Don't forget to call for the traditional Ferrero's firing after this season, even if Carlitos won this next USO but lost the AO.

I haven't said anything of that sort remotely ever. Stop projecting.

I respect your biased, flawed opinion on this.

err, what?

AO and YEC, its not even close. surely you are not going to attempt to argue that.

Lets get to Wim and USO ->

Alcaraz should play one Wimbledon or USO well from start to finish (with max 1 hiccup earlier on). and get to a fricking semi at the AO.
I like alcaraz style, but overblowing of his level is just silly.

for example:

play at WIm 23 level before final and WIm 24 level in final for one run. Murray did that in Wim 12, WIm 16, USO 12 (and WIm 13 with one hiccup vs dasco)
prime Murray would tear apart Wim 23 djoko, losing 1 set tops. and wouldn't get broken 20 times like Alcaraz in Wim 24.


and at USO 12 or even 08, Murray wouldn't have to go 5 sets vs tiafoe+old cilic, not to forget be in danger of going down 2 sets to 1 vs ruud. and USO 22 alcaraz has like 10-15% chance of beating 12 USO djoko in the wind and 1% without the wind. murray thrashed Raonic at that USO and took care of berdych in 4 sets.
in USO 08, beat delpo and prime nadal (though he didn't exactly play at prime level) in 4 sets each. (of course USO 08 final was a different case with a beastly prime, hungry federer awaiting). If alcaraz can have nervous cramps vs ancient djokovic, he's not doing anywhere near well vs that federer and would be crushed similarly. But there is a decent chance USO 22 alcaraz might not even get to the final given he'd have to beat nadal in the semi
yeah, he played well vs Sinner, but still had to save MPs. should've closed it out in 4 vs tiafoe and didn't, nadal is going to make him pay for such things unlike Tiafoe.

So on what basis exactly is Alcaraz at Murray prime level at either Wim or USO, biased, absolutely flawed opinion guy?

And you misinterpreted my words.

I just said you called him better. I call him definitely worse, even if somehow close. Just that you base your claims on close, but unpopular and definitely dubious calls and build from that to basically downplay Carlitos achievements.

oh please. you said this. >> means much better in case you didn't know.

I mean, I already got a Fed fan arguing DelPo >> Sinner in last RG, despite the later not dropping a set and baggeling opposition left and right.

delpo was smashing his much competition compared to the poor competition Sinner faced before SF at RG.

delpo beat tsonga, andreev, robredo losing 1 set total.
their stats in both the years are similar even though delpo faced clearly tougher competition.

 

[Mainad]

Murray was never great to begin with.

Nobody's great to begin with. It's what they do with their career that makes that distinction.

 

[pierceforehands]

I am definitely not a Djokovic fan, and I still think he padded a lot of his stats by the vulture era which he was the biggest beneficiary of all of, but some of this talk is funny. Alcarez is struggling badly to beat a grandpa Djokovic, hasn't he lost 5 of their last 6 matches or something humiliating like that. Of course he would often be losing to even the pre prime Djokovic, who was still already really good, of 08-2010, who was already challenging peak Nadal and prime Federer. Not on grass only in that Djokovic of those years for some reason was not particularly good on grass yet, but would be blown away on hard courts, lose badly indoors, and given that he couldn't beat grandpa Djokovic in RG of 2 years ago or the Olympics, iffy at best if he could win on clay.

Also abmk is far from a Djokovic fan, and actualy likes Alcarez, so that he is arguing this way should already be proof enough.

 

[MisterP]

Is 5 more than 3? I always forget. Forgive my southern US public education.

 

[Jav]

I get it, it’s a long, tedious convo. There’s nothing wrong with occasionally losing track. Just cop to it, LOL.

Your English is alright. It’s not primarily a language barrier. You’re mostly just a very stubborn dude.

"Again, what was Roger early record on clay? And Rafa's early record on HC? And Djokovic early record overall?" Should have given you a clue, as well as the rest of my posts that, even if you thought that was ever the case, we should get past it already.

I am definitely not a Djokovic fan, and I still think he padded a lot of his stats by the vulture era which he was the biggest beneficiary of all of, but some of this talk is funny. Alcarez is struggling badly to beat a grandpa Djokovic, hasn't he lost 5 of their last 6 matches or something humiliating like that. Of course he would often be losing to even the pre prime Djokovic, who was still already really good, of 08-2010, who was already challenging peak Nadal and prime Federer. Not on grass only in that Djokovic of those years for some reason was not particularly good on grass yet, but would be blown away on hard courts, lose badly indoors, and given that he couldn't beat grandpa Djokovic in RG of 2 years ago or the Olympics, iffy at best if he could win on clay.

Also abmk is far from a Djokovic fan, and actualy likes Alcarez, so that he is arguing this way should already be proof enough.

I already stated h2h doesn’t directly work like that: see Murray.

Struggling badly is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Idk how you don’t get that Novak has always been a veteran kind of player, never a wonderkid. In fact his 2023 stats f.e. edge those of 2008. And sure, tougher competition back then and so on, but it should serve as an example that you guys are probably downplaying Oldovic a bit against young Novak just to fit your narrative. It’s in most regards the same player we’re talking, none truly at their primes. And we’ve yet to see a rematch of these two either on grass or on clay, I don’t think Novak would do better than in 2024, he’s naturally declining and Carlitos still on the rise (again, just compare his 2022, 23, 24 to 25 stats).

I'm talking based on what has happened already. USO 08 djoko is a level above USO 22 alcaraz. 23 USO/24 USO alcaraz is not even in the picture.

Fair enough, but we haven’t had just that many seasons for Alcaraz just yet. Sure, last season was a bump, I already explained why. But if you wanna be fair you’d have to realize, age wise, 2008 Djokovic is only comparable to 2024 for Carlitos. And he had already (almost) equally impressive feats or at least performances in my book by then, be it USO22 to a stretch or Beijing 2024.

I could still rank Djokovic’s higher though as things go to date. That being said:

• It could rapidly change
• You’re still downplaying him badly on natural

Djokovic won Rome in 08, played peak nadal tough in Hamburg and only one close to taking a set vs peak nadal in RG (and lost to prime fed in MC).
in which world am I over-rating 08 djoko on clay?

In the world you’re comparing these feats to everything Carlitos has already won and performed on clay.

Just to remind you some wins, not “close to taking a set” (lol) and stats on clay:

• Madrid Open 2022 SF (v Nadal) and F (v Djokovic)
• RG 2024 SF (v Sinner)
• Rome 2025 F and RG F (v Sinner)

Titles: x2 GS, x4 M1000, x3 ATP500, x2 ATP250

and 08 is not baby djokovic. its prime-ish djoko. prime level in several parts/matches of the season

Ok, young Djokovic then.

I already explained why you can’t call young Djokovic (pre-09) “prime-ish” without being inconsistent, you could arguably extend his prime well into the 2020’s as well then.

LOL, no.

AO 08 djoko >>>>> AO 25 alcaraz
USO 08 djoko >>>> USO 23/24 alcaraz (since that's the latest info we have)

Maybe, but I don’t expect them to be representative of Carlitos true level on HC as I already explained. Anyway, fair enough I guess?

the only thing alcaraz has a big edge on is Wim, not clay/RG

Already explained why that is not really the case.

so djoko's edge on HC is significantly more

Nope.

I am not sure what you mean by the break% part here. if you mean their stats in years 08 and 25, competition in 08 was way tougher and deeper in 08 than in 25

Already counted.

but no leeway to djokovic, right? though he did play well in Queens before Wimbledon.
and even without a historical 5-setter, there is a decent chance alcaraz gets upset by safin playing like that.

There’s a chance for Safin of beatin any player at any given time, what are you trying to tell me there.

and your statements happen when you haven't watched tennis in the past. djoko was very good on clay in 08. played well in queens 08 too.

I’ve done it.

“Very well” is not Alcaraz’s proven level on natural, mind you.

 

[Jav]

I haven't said anything of that sort remotely ever. Stop projecting.

You said 08’ YEC Novak was much better, like that wasn’t played on fast HC after the HC season lmao

err, what?

AO and YEC, its not even close. surely you are not going to attempt to argue that.

Nope, not that close, yeah. Still dependent on which face of Carlitos shows though. I mean, Beijing 24 Final >> Whatever level Djokovic showed on any natural surface prior 2009.

Wouldn’t give him more than a 25% chance there anyway.

Lets get to Wim and USO ->

Alcaraz should play one Wimbledon or USO well from start to finish (with max 1 hiccup earlier on). and get to a fricking semi at the AO.

But I thought we were discussing the other 3 majors there already.

I like alcaraz style, but overblowing of his level is just silly.

for example:

play at WIm 23 level before final and WIm 24 level in final for one run. Murray did that in Wim 12, WIm 16, USO 12 (and WIm 13 with one hiccup vs dasco)
prime Murray would tear apart Wim 23 djoko, losing 1 set tops. and wouldn't get broken 20 times like Alcaraz in Wim 24.

We don’t compare ATGs by how they performed against subpar competition, otherwise Novak wouldn’t be the GOAT as he hasn’t any straight-set GS on his count and has some particular sounded upsets even in finals.

You compare them h2h, preferably on big ocassions.

Alcaraz would not drop his level as when he faces a #87. He raises the bar when he’s needed, and Djokovic 08 would definitely push him there.

I don’t think he needs to prove much further than he can play at the highest of stakes.

You’re still downplaying 2023 Novak though, inconsistently so. You guys should know stats exist for a reason, and you can only contextualize them so far.

and at USO 12 or even 08, Murray wouldn't have to go 5 sets vs tiafoe+old cilic, not to forget be in danger of going down 2 sets to 1 vs ruud. and USO 22 alcaraz has like 10-15% chance of beating 12 USO djoko in the wind and 1% without the wind. murray thrashed Raonic at that USO and took care of berdych in 4 sets.

With the 10% and 1% windy you got me. No further evidence to prove your bias or even comprehension of tennis betting stats.

Mind you it’s not even 2022 we’re talking, it’s 2024. But even 2022 wouldn’t have less than, at least, a 20-30% chance.

You place 08’ Novak on Beijing F last season and I don’t give him more than a 40% chance of beating that Alcaraz, since even Sinner wasn’t capable of doing so.

in USO 08, beat delpo and prime nadal (though he didn't exactly play at prime level) in 4 sets each. (of course USO 08 final was a different case with a beastly prime, hungry federer awaiting). If alcaraz can have nervous cramps vs ancient djokovic, he's not doing anywhere near well vs that federer and would be crushed similarly.

This is you establishing poor “domino” h2h reasoning as if it worked like that.

But there is a decent chance USO 22 alcaraz might not even get to the final given he'd have to beat nadal in the semi
yeah, he played well vs Sinner, but still had to save MPs. should've closed it out in 4 vs tiafoe and didn't, nadal is going to make him pay for such things unlike Tiafoe.

Probably, yeah. It’s what happens when you put anybody at the heights of Fedal’s career.

So on what basis exactly is Alcaraz at Murray prime level at either Wim or USO, biased, absolutely flawed opinion guy?

On the basis Murray has not better numbers than Charlie there when the later has just entered 22?

I swear this got the same sense of inevitability than Djokovic when Fedal fans were arguing “well yeah but he’s much behind in the GS race”.

Carlitos will get to twice his GS count, that is, double digits probably before he passes 25, and that’s not even a risky bet. Yet some people will argue how they didn’t see that coming at all. Or, I correct myself, how it was somehow impossible to predict so.

You see the first years of Nadal on clay or even Federer and you already knew you were beholding something special in the making.

Most people agree on that with Alcaraz, even Sinner too, in levels Murray never dreamt of. Yet we’re still here discussing whether the later feats were more impressive because of his competition during his 26s to 32.

And since you overrate TB3 invincible aura to start with, that’s just gets into a circular fallacy impossible to demyth.

oh please. you said this. >> means much better in case you didn't know.

Then you explain to me what you mean by this: >>>>> or this: >>>>

Oh, don’t worry, you already did, a 10% to 1% depending on conditions. Got it

delpo was smashing his much competition compared to the poor competition Sinner faced before SF at RG.

Slightly better competition he got.

Gasquet, Lehecka, Rublev, Bublik, Djokovic and Alcaraz himself.

That is no easy path lol

delpo beat tsonga, andreev, robredo losing 1 set total.
their stats in both the years are similar even though delpo faced clearly tougher competition.

Sinner’s (stats) were more spectacular. Considering the path he was carrying from Rome as well, I’ll still rank his feats definitely higher than DelPo’s.

 

[Jav]

Wimbledon, yes. AO and USO, no.

RG, toss-up. Djokovic won Rome, pushed Nadal at Hamburg, was the only guy to give the best version of him a somewhat competitive match at RG, won the YEC, performed comparably at the Olympics

Already debunked that to the guy above. If that’s your equivalent to Carlitos track on clay I don’t really have much to add. I’m serious.

and comparably (better) for Masters

He won one (1) M1000 fgs. Are you kidding me right now? Is this not fact-checking?

Are you confusing it with another Novak’s season, maybe? Or I have to remind you Carlitos clay season feats only this season?

I’m seriously doubting you lack what it takes for a serious discussion anymore.

What I said was, actually, that the prime version of Novak's forehand is close to Alcy's at 21/22, when he might not be at his peak yet (though it didn't preclude Nadal from reaching his fh peak at that age).

It’s funny how you’re going back with Carlitos FH. That’s called “recoger cuerda” in Spanish.

You like to talk about losing track. Well, believe it or not, you started with this “ I think Alcaraz has had the better forehand since about the end of ‘23”

That’s almost two seasons difference in my calendar but it’s the gregorian, mind you.

Maybe you’ll need to go back to Charlie’s challengers years next time to prove your point.

This you take as some really damning criticism? Well alrighty.

Yes, lol. Deal with it you’re sharing some misinformation at this point.

This needs to be untangled.

You tell me.

I didn't think i needed to. You're the one downplaying the importance of the hardcourt H2H...that's how that discussion began. My response was that even if you omit the H2H and just wipe the tournies from the record, what's left isn't that great: 6 out of 29 wins since '22 IW. That's the most favourable time-range for Raz.

In reality, him and Babydal are close even on HC.

HC weights as much as their h2hs actually tell, since they played half of their games there. No need to amplify it.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. I have an inkling but I'm guessing you misunderstood the point you were responding to.

Cherry-picking by your part. That’s what I’m saying.

Yeah '16-'23 was a weak period too...100 times yes...agreed.

Ok. Make an argument then, I guess.

Now weight them accordingly for your weak-strong era arguments. There’s a thing called average.

And they're great players. Not GOAT-level players (level-wise), of yet. That they are being put on that pedestal is unfair to the players that deserve to be.

I disagree. In fact I think you’re downplaying them, f.e., comparing them to Murray, hence disregarding the age.

I already passed you an elo graph which shows the exceptionality of Sincaraz phenomenon, only comparable to Fedal (not even Novak, just yet).

I don't think you even know what you're comparing it to at this point.

You sure? I think it’s the other way around.

Hards are the predominant surface on tour. Clay isn't, and none of Carlos' current clay exploits would've amounted to much if pitted against Prime Nadal (something him and Murray actually have in common).

Half of Novak’s early years HC exploits (his favorite) would have been exposed by prime Sinner. And yes I’m counting Fed there which, if anything, was more of a grass specialist.

Another thing in common is that i dismiss both of them being close to TB3, though Carlos has a little more time to leave his mark on that comparison.

Well, we disagree.

Fair enough, here we just disagree and probably can't be swayed. For me it's very easy to imagine a world where (just as an example, not a direct comparison to Sinneraz's slam paths) the real-life Murray wins something like 5-8 majors from '11-'13, absent TB3 (pretend they got suspended). That it can even be plausibly imagined shows how much of a determinant top-end competition is. That Murray is no greater a player, in my eyes.

The problem is you outweighting this in a factor of two. Otherwise you’d never have 3 weighting more than 5. Even featuring that 2016 Wimbledon one.

Especially when I demonstrated Alcaraz hasn’t had a walk on the park by any means in any of his, not even USO22.

'05, '06, '07. Those are three of the four years generally accepted as Federer's peak, where Nadal played like an all-timer on Fed's worst surface.

And we’ve got yet to see which years are those for Sincaraz. Especially Alcaraz.

I bring them up to make clear that he lost two big matches on his favourite surfaces in four years, and both of those were extremely close, which adds to how extremely impressive that run was.

Alcaraz has also gotten close to some feats if that’s your argument.

Idk how that speaks against the Fed weak era talks though.

Total non sequitur

You have just tried to argue how Fed’s unclutchness adds to his feats, somehow.

He had a lingering foot injury that plagued him in the tournament, which he talked about in the matches leading up to the Raz encounter.

Then don't omit the context of Nadal's injury or, at a minimum, acknowledge that Murray played most of his matches against primes versions of Djokovic and Nadal

And naturally lost most of them. Also played much of his career without most of them. It’s not like all of TB3 stole each and every of his chances each and everytime.

 

[Zetty]

I'd say they're the same level currently based on resume. I think Carlos is a better player though.

 

[TheFifthSet]

He won one (1) M1000 fgs. Are you kidding me right now? Is this not fact-checking?

Are you confusing it with another Novak’s season, maybe? Or I have to remind you Carlitos clay season feats only this season?

I’m seriously doubting you lack what it takes for a serious discussion anymore.

I’ll respond to the rest later, but this, in a nutshell, sums up how excruciating this discussion has been:


Djokovic won two Masters in 2008. Yes, you are confused.

 

[Jav]

It's like I'm getting punk'd here.

We're talking about "metrics." YOU said "every metric is against you." Not me. You.

My response was "no, they are not, here are [a few]."

What do you not get?

You’ll have to remind me which are these because as far as I recall you only brought the HC bias, like FHs were only played there. Idk, you’ll need to extend on your point behind all that HC f*cking reasoning because there’s an elephant in the room there which I still don’t get which is you blatantly cherry-picking these unrelated stats you prefer, yet still using them against me somehow.

Are we talking about the H2H, and their current iterations, or not?

Because if we're talking about how they're currently constructed then i'd say Alcaraz has a better net game, better forehand (for part of it), better movement, better drop shots, better first serve return.

I established long ago we’re talking about their averages. Whether Novak’s or Carlitos current iterations are far or not from theirs (shot-selection mainly, I may remind you, the movement was just another discrepancy from mine but that’s a whole different point as he definitely declined there) is up to you.

These were not the initial categories you established in your other post to downplay Alcaraz strenghts btw. You should stick to them and include those dropshots in their FH/BH categories.

Yes so we agree that stroke-for-stroke tallies aren't the final word on how a H2H plays out. Thanks dude.

If you go back to one of my first replies you’ll remember I already talked about you can make conclusions out of the point tally data pool to analyze specific kind of points, not much (definitely not as much) from the match W/L h2h record one. Hence why I went with these Wapsting posts. Otherwise I’d have sticked to the ATP “activity” or h2h page.

Those were, by his own admission, nerves which caused cramping.

Sort of an injury if you ask me. Not like Djokovic didn’t have “lighter” time outs, ah? Wink-wink

You are again talking past me. If that's as far as you're willing to go ("it's not fair because Carlos isn't a finished product"), sure no problem. But it's not. You and much of your ilk wanna have your cake and eat it too.

Both claims, “Carlitos is probably not in his prime yet, yet you’re still comparing him to prime Big 4” is not incompatible or incoherent at all. To the contrary, it adds to my point of your bias.

Never said it did.

Then why are you bringing it in the first place? To deviate attention?

I’m not a fool dude. I’m old enough to know you’ll use any of the other Big 3 feats to add for the third, whether it’s Novak’s performance on clay because of Rafa there, or Novak’s FH somehow still holding his place against GOATed Nadal’s and Roger’s (like Charlie’s couldn’t do so).

Heck you started all this with how Novak’s “held its place” against strong ones the like of DelPo. May I introduce you to Sinner’s FH, buddy?

Which concession, which claim, what overwhelming evidence?

Everyone I passed, from all sort. Game stats, tech stats, experts background, etc

You don't have any insights. You linked a few posts of other people's words/quotes and didn't elaborate on their significance.

As some like to say, paraphrasing you, contrary to what?

I mean, what have you brought apart from, I’ll repeat, HC break %.

The one you did (FHP) was inconclusive, at best.

With quotes, please show me where I called it weak. This wasn't my argument, so it can be discarded.

You basically laughed over the idea of it being up there. Let’s not enter this game, thanks.

There's no inconsistency at all.

You are the one that mentioned forehand metrics (the ones which favour your argument, or ostensibly do). I subjected this to an internal critique, and then gave some metrics which don't favour your argument.

Contrary to your beliefs, they don’t disprove them because I never implied it (spin, speed, etc) was a total metric or complete evidence towards superiority, just a good insight. I’ll repeat it to you that it needs to be studied among others (arguably placement, angles etc, things you get with the eye test).

Throughout it all, I've maintained that no "one" stat will be sufficient. This applies both when you gish-gallpo me with pace+spin leaderboards AND when I mention their fhp/match and fhp/100 rates.

But, importantly, you are the one that invoked forehand statistics first. So: which ones matter? Which ones don't? Why did you say """all""" the metrics support your claim, when they don't?

All of them, as a whole. If you weren’t biased you’d see they lead towards a conclusions, yet you’re taking the contrary one.

Wow that's an impressive amount of twisting.

Thanks.

I was NOT expecting you to know that; where did I say this? I meant what i explicitly said: I'm sending you a series of posts i made on the matter so that you know what my opinion is, to better-inform our discussion. No hidden meaning. No expectations mounted on you.

“I’ve long said I think Djokovic’s record on clay supersedes his actual ability, same with grass. I even said I would consider Federer (another favourite) the better grass courter if Djokovic won 9 Wimbledons. ” Never to me lol

That’s just an example.

Because you took it upon yourself to mention things irrelevant to our conversation. I sent you posts that are directly relevant to the talking point in question.

It’s important to the context of my initial reply there and what were you replying to when you quoted me.

This doesn't even make sense. If i felt the hierarchy of their forehands were an immovable object, why would i say they're close?

Because blatant lies customed as opinions can only go so far. It’s called make up.

Yes these are my claims.

Fantastic.

Yes, you do. All titles count the same numerically, but not all the same conclusions follow from all the same titles. This is a banal statement that's self-evidently true.

Your conclusions definitely surpass any kind of internal coherence.

 

[Jav]

I’ll respond to the rest later, but this, in a nutshell, sums up how excruciating this discussion has been:


Djokovic won two Masters in 2008. Yes, you are confused.

CLAY MASTERS.

CLAY

MASTERS.

C
-
L
-
A
-
Y

For context, we were comparing CLAY PERFORMANCES.

You guys are arguing his clay feats were comparable, somehow.

You were talking about RG, Rome, Hamburg and the Olympics 08 (on clay).

Get your mind right fgs

 

[TheFifthSet]

CLAY MASTERS.

CLAY

MASTERS.

C
-
L
-
A
-
Y

I said he did comparably or better “at the Masters.” That’s what I said. That’s what you quoted, and responded to. I didn’t say he did better at “Clay Masters.” I said Masters.

You inferring (incorrectly) that I meant clay masters (even though I didn’t say it) isn’t my problem. I think you just can’t or won’t read.

You like to talk about losing track. Well, believe it or not, you started with this “ I think Alcaraz has had the better forehand since about the end of ‘23”

That’s almost two seasons difference in my calendar but it’s the gregorian, mind you.

Yes, I said this. Never forgot I said this. Relevance to current discussion?

Yes, lol. Deal with it you’re sharing some misinformation at this point.

If I am, you haven’t shown it.

HC weights as much as their h2hs actually tell, since they played half of their games there. No need to amplify it.

No need to downplay it, LOL.

Cherry-picking by your part. That’s what I’m saying.

That’s sort of what comparing best years entails.

Now weight them accordingly for your weak-strong era arguments. There’s a thing called average.

Morbidly curious, are you aware what the subject is here? I’ll answer it when I receive confirmation that you know, so that it doesn’t prove to be another time-waster.

I disagree. In fact I think you’re downplaying them, f.e., comparing them to Murray, hence disregarding the age.

I wish that were the case.

I already passed you an elo graph which shows the exceptionality of Sincaraz phenomenon, only comparable to Fedal (not even Novak, just yet).

We were originally talking about Elo insofar as it relates to the Murray comparison. Not only is Peak Murray’s Elo higher but even ‘09 Murray (the age Alcaraz is now) had a higher Elo than him.

You sure?

Yes.

Half of Novak’s early years HC exploits (his favorite) would have been exposed by prime Sinner.

Dizzying. Apparently these guys are only in their prime when you say so.

And yes I’m counting Fed there which, if anything, was more of a grass specialist

This one is definitely new.

Well, we disagree.

Indeed.

The problem is you outweighting this in a factor of two. Otherwise you’d never have 3 weighting more than 5. Even featuring that 2016 Wimbledon one.

I don’t exactly know what this means. Again I have a feeling, but I’m hesitant to respond because it could mean several things.

Especially when I demonstrated Alcaraz hasn’t had a walk on the park by any means in any of his, not even USO22.

The slam in which Djokovic was barred, Nadal was injured and Alcaraz got by with a level in the later rounds that wouldn’t have cut it for the vast majority of winners in the 21st century?

You have just tried to argue how Fed’s unclutchness adds to his feats, somehow.

This clearly, nakedly isn’t what happened. I’m starting to come around on your “language barrier” concerns.

And naturally lost most of them.

Sort of like Alcaraz losing 7 out of 11 (a comparable percentage) against much worse versions than the average that Murray went up against.

Also played much of his career without most of them.

Which part? At least one was at or near their prime for the entirety of his slam-contention window.

It’s not like all of TB3 stole each and every of his chances each and everytime.

No one said they did. He did however sport a 90% rate over 10 years in slams against the rest.

 

[abmk]

Fair enough, but we haven’t had just that many seasons for Alcaraz just yet. Sure, last season was a bump, I already explained why. But if you wanna be fair you’d have to realize, age wise, 2008 Djokovic is only comparable to 2024 for Carlitos. And he had already (almost) equally impressive feats or at least performances in my book by then, be it USO22 to a stretch or Beijing 2024.

lol wut? djoko of USO 07 and USO 08 clearly better than alcaraz of USO 22. its not even close.

are you seriously bringing in beijing 2024 final? LOL.
djokovic beat #3, #2 and #1 at Montreal 2007, crushed nadal in Miami 07, IW 08 etc. in non-slams which any HC match of Alcaraz isn't at.
that's not even getting to his best level which is AO 2008.

alcaraz hasn't done **** comparable to that in any slam.

In the world you’re comparing these feats to everything Carlitos has already won and performed on clay.

Just to remind you some wins, not “close to taking a set” (lol) and stats on clay:

• Madrid Open 2022 SF (v Nadal) and F (v Djokovic)
• RG 2024 SF (v Sinner)
• Rome 2025 F and RG F (v Sinner)

Titles: x2 GS, x4 M1000, x3 ATP500, x2 ATP250

lol, Rome 2025 final Sinner who crumbled after a set. bweh nadal in 2002 madrid SF.
again you are talking about feats when I am talking about level.

24/25 RG alcaraz wouldn't have won a set vs RG 08 nadal either. he'd be made mincemeat of.
and tell me which Masters apart from rome 08 does alcaraz of 24 or 25 win in 07/08?

people rightly went gaga over Alcaraz's level in the TB of RG 2025 final. that's the level djokovic had to play to come back in RG 2008 final 3rd set from 0-3 down to make it 6 all (and he had a SP). but sure you watched tennis back then.

Ok, young Djokovic then.

I already explained why you can’t call young Djokovic (pre-09) “prime-ish” without being inconsistent, you could arguably extend his prime well into the 2020’s as well then.

its simple for those who actually followed tennis. djokovic had a clear slump in 09/10 compared to 08

Maybe, but I don’t expect them to be representative of Carlitos true level on HC as I already explained. Anyway, fair enough I guess?

when he shows his true level in a HC slam (and not in IW/Beijing) we can talk. Until then 2008 djoko-alcaraz gap on HC >> their gap on natural surfaces

Already explained why that is not really the case.

nope, you just showed accomplishments which is not an equivalent of level given the very weak era we are in.

There’s a chance for Safin of beatin any player at any given time, what are you trying to tell me there.

that you are ignoring djokovic's level in Queens that year and calling him a HC specialist is BS, especially given clay

I’ve done it.

not what your statements about djokovic on grass and clay in 08 show

“Very well” is not Alcaraz’s proven level on natural, mind you.

I don't even know what that last line means

 

[TheFifthSet]

For context, we were comparing CLAY PERFORMANCES.

To address your edit:

No. We weren’t. Not in that quote bubble and not in that convo. This isn’t a matter of debate. It’s right in front of everyone’s eyes. There’s no latitude possible here. We very clearly, verifiably weren’t just talking about clay.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I don't even know what that last line means

Welcome to my world.

 

[Hood_Man]

What reading an internet argument where everyone is doing the slice-up-a-post-into-bitesize-chunks-to-respond-to-all-of-them feels like;

 

[TheFifthSet]

You’ll have to remind me which are these because as far as I recall you only brought the HC bias, like FHs were only played there. Idk, you’ll need to extend on your point behind all that HC f*cking reasoning because there’s an elephant in the room there which I still don’t get which is you blatantly cherry-picking these stars you prefer, yet still using them against me somehow.



I established long ago we’re talking about their averages. Whether Novak’s or Carlitos current iterations are far or not from theirs (shot-selection mainly, I may remind you, the movement was just another discrepancy from mine but that’s a whole different point as he definitely declined there) is up to you.

These were not the initial categories you established in your other post to downplay Alcaraz strenghts btw. You should stick to them and include those dropshots in their FH/BH categories.



If you go back to one of my first replies you’ll remember I already talked about you can make conclusions out of the point tally data pool to analyze specific kind of points, not much (definitely not as much) from the match W/L h2h record one. Hence why I went with these Wapsting posts. Otherwise I’d have sticked to the ATP “activity” or h2h page.



Sort of an injury if you ask me. Not like Djokovic didn’t have “lighter” time outs, ah? Wink-wink



Both claims, “Carlitos is probably not in his prime yet, yet you’re still comparing him to prime Big 4” is not incompatible or incoherent at all. To the contrary, it adds to my point of your bias.



Then are you bringing it in the first place? To deviate attention?

I’m not a fool dude. I’m old enough to know you’ll use any of the other Big 3 feats to add for the third, whether it’s Novak’s performance on clay because of Rafa there, or Novak’s FH somehow still holding his place against GOATed Nadal’s and Roger’s (like Charlie’s couldn’t do so).

Heck you started all this with how Novak’s “held its place” against strong ones the like of DelPo. May I introduce you to Sinner’s FH, buddy?



Everyone I passed, from all sort. Game stats, tech stats, experts background, erc



As some like to say, paraphrasing you, contrary to what?

I mean, what have you brought apart from, I’ll repeat, HC break %.

The one you did (FHP) was inconclusive, at best.



You basically laughed over the idea of it being up there. Let’s not enter this game, thanks.



Contrary to your beliefs, they don’t disprove them because I never implied it (spin, speed, etc) was a total metric or complete evidence towards superiority, just a good insight. I’ll repeat it to you that it needs to be studied among others (arguably placement, angles etc, things you get with the eye test).



All of them, as a whole. If you weren’t biased you’d see they lead towards a conclusions, yet you’re taking the contrary one.



Thanks.



“I’ve long said I think Djokovic’s record on clay supersedes his actual ability, same with grass. I even said I would consider Federer (another favourite) the better grass courter if Djokovic won 9 Wimbledons. ” Never to me lol

That’s just an example.



It’s important to the context of my initial reply there and what were you replying to when you quoted me.



Because blatant lies customed as opinions can only go so far. It’s called make up.



Fantastic.



Your conclusions definitely surpass any kind of internal coherence.

Much of this is barely English. Again the words on their own make sense, but the way they’re strung together don’t seem to touch much of what they’re supposed to be responding to.

Feel free to have the last (incoherent) word there man. Holy.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

What reading an internet argument where everyone is doing the slice-up-a-post-into-bitesize-chunks-to-respond-to-all-of-them feels like;

I've been on this forum so long, posted so much, all I see now when it rains is talk tennis quotes bleeding down my windows. A lot of the classics.

 

[Jav]

We come from this, by you, talking about 08’ Novak compared to Carlitos nowadays (2025):

RG, toss-up. Djokovic won Rome, pushed Nadal at Hamburg, was the only guy to give the best version of him a somewhat competitive match at RG, won the YEC, performed comparably at the Olympics and comparably (better) in the Masters.

Btw we were having a subsequent conversation which followed like this:

Djokovic won Rome in 08, played peak nadal tough in Hamburg and only one close to taking a set vs peak nadal in RG (and lost to prime fed in MC).
in which world am I over-rating 08 djoko on clay?

Me:

In the world you’re comparing these feats to everything Carlitos has already won and performed on clay.

Just to remind you some wins, not “close to taking a set” (lol) and stats on clay:

• Madrid Open 2022 SF (v Nadal) and F (v Djokovic)
• RG 2024 SF (v Sinner)
• Rome 2025 F and RG F (v Sinner)

Titles: x2 GS, x4 M1000, x3 ATP500, x2 ATP250

And you want me to interpret the Masters statement as a M1000 comparison whole season, despite the fact we’re just into half of this, 2025. When talking about clay performances on majors, no less.

Well, pick one:

• You treat me (us) as fools, moving the post constantly and bringing unrelated, unfinished evidence to the table
• You don’t know how to structure your ideas properly nor use signs of punctuation / separate in paragraph as you’d expect from an internet enthusiast. And you still bring unrelated evidence

I’m not even extending more. I don’t think it’s worth it as I’ve stated before.

You already recognized your confusions as with the Carlitos FH datings and answered with a “yes, and?” like it wasn’t with you.

Answer to whatever else you want, I’ll leave it here.

I may come back ocasionally to this whenever Carlitos wins something again. Which he’ll do. Several times.

You’ll answer something the likes of “oh, don’t worry, I’ll celebrate it too, I said I like the guy”.

And I’ll celebrate Novak’s. Just after Dimitrov’s (Wink - Wink)

 

[abmk]

You said 08’ YEC Novak was much better, like that wasn’t played on fast HC after the HC season lmao

my response was to your point about ferrero coaching. not about YEC 2008. just read properly.

Nope, not that close, yeah. Still dependent on which face of Carlitos shows though. I mean, Beijing 24 Final >> Whatever level Djokovic showed on any natural surface prior 2009.

Wouldn’t give him more than a 25% chance there anyway.

not at all. djokovic 08 at Rome/hamburg is comparable for starters.
and Beijing is a 500.

We don’t compare ATGs by how they performed against subpar competition, otherwise Novak wouldn’t be the GOAT as he hasn’t any straight-set GS on his count and has some particular sounded upsets even in finals.

You compare them h2h, preferably on big ocassions.

Alcaraz would not drop his level as when he faces a #87. He raises the bar when he’s needed, and Djokovic 08 would definitely push him there.

I don’t think he needs to prove much further than he can play at the highest of stakes.

You’re still downplaying 2023 Novak though, inconsistently so. You guys should know stats exist for a reason, and you can only contextualize them so far.

except alcaraz hasn't faced many quality opponents.

Lets keep the bar at just good, nothing even great.

loses to zverev in RG 22
beat Sinner in USO 22
lost to djoko in RG 23
won vs djoko in Wim 23
lost to med in USO 23
lost to zverev in AO 24
lost to djoko in AO 25,
won vs Sinner in RG 25.
that's 3-5. and that's keeping the bar low. if we raise it to very good, number of matches will reduce. I left out Sinner WIm 22 obviously to keep it fair.

if we have to stick to wimbledon, we have a sample size of only 1 - djoko Wim 23.

alcaraz did drop his level in Wim 23 final - gifting 1st set to djoko and a below par 4th set. so what are you on about?
he played 3 good sets and happened to win them all. only the 5th set was where djokovic also played well.

djokovic didn't serve well, hit 2 BH UEs in the crucial 2nd set TB and played a below par 3rd set.
yes, stats exist for a reason. they show he didn't serve well and hit quite a few UFEs.

and 1 scare in earlier rounds is fine, but when you get broken 20+ fricking times at Wimbledon like alcaraz in Wim 24, people will take that into account more than one excellent performance vs a corpse djokovic in Wim 24 final (worst final for djokovic)

again, like I said, Murray has 3 wimbledons clearly greater than alcaraz's (12, 13, 16).
alcaraz hasn't even stiched together 1 such performance. he needed to combine Wim 23 pre-final and Wim 24 final.

With the 10% and 1% windy you got me. No further evidence to prove your bias or even comprehension of tennis betting stats.
Mind you it’s not even 2022 we’re talking, it’s 2024. But even 2022 wouldn’t have less than, at least, a 20-30% chance.

yes, 2022 alcaraz who went 5 vs ancient cilic, vs tiafoe in the semi, was nearly down 2 sets to love vs ruud in the final.
yes, that's a 10-15% chance vs absolute peak djokovic at the USO with windy conditions (that'd have been djokovic's best USO if not for windy conditions). wasn't someone complaining about alcaraz having to face windy conditions vs nadal in IW 22 (not sure if that was you)

I ask you which match in USO 2022 did alcaraz play comparably to USO 2012 murray or 2008 USO murray vs delpo/nadal. zero. big fat zero.

You place 08’ Novak on Beijing F last season and I don’t give him more than a 40% chance of beating that Alcaraz, since even Sinner wasn’t capable of doing so.

once again showing you didn't watch tennis before.

Miami 07 djoko, Canada 07 DJoko, IW 08 djoko and especially AO 08 djoko would beat either sinner or alcaraz at beijing 24. thinking sinner is this some invincible monster on HC> he's not. worst, pathetic competition of this era is making him look far better on HC than he is.

This is you establishing poor “domino” h2h reasoning as if it worked like that.

lol, dude enough with BS fancy terms.
Name one match at the slam where Alcaraz has played better than Murray at ->

Wim: Wim 12 SF/F, Wim 13 F, Wim 16 SF/F
USO: USO 08 QF/SF, USO 12 vs Raonic, SF/F

On the basis Murray has not better numbers than Charlie there when the later has just entered 22?

because of the massive competition difference

I swear this got the same sense of inevitability than Djokovic when Fedal fans were arguing “well yeah but he’s much behind in the GS race”.

Carlitos will get to twice his GS count, that is, double digits probably before he passes 25, and that’s not even a risky bet. Yet some people will argue how they didn’t see that coming at all. Or, I correct myself, how it was somehow impossible to predict so.

You see the first years of Nadal on clay or even Federer and you already knew you were beholding something special in the making
Most people agree on that with Alcaraz, even Sinner too, in levels Murray never dreamt of. Yet we’re still here discussing whether the later feats were more impressive because of his competition during his 26s to 32.

what most people? kids who didn't watch tennis before 2015 and mainly saw the loser stuff of 89-99 born - zverev, tpas, med and rao-nishi-dimi

what match has alcaraz shown that he has better at Wim or USO or YEC at murray? zero. that's a big fat zero.

alcaraz speciality is his shotmaking/insane gets/mental toughness (even in this really weak era). But the consistency from the ground/serve is just not there for a level higher than prime murray. I like Alcaraz style - he's one of the few things keeping me somewhat interested in this dark age of tennis, but that level isn't there.

RG 23 was his best shot, but he ended up cramping vs djoko instead. smh. after those masterclasses vs musetti and tsitsipas, should've wrapped up djoko in 4 sets and beaten Ruud in the final.

Imagine needing 5.5 years for one truly great match in a decade - RG 25. and that won't even be in the top 10 in 2000-09 level wise. (although drama is high up)
USO 22 QF is comparable to USO 05 QF b/w blake and agassi and that match will probably be in 16-20 range in the 2000s.

that bold statement is just plain delusional. Murray's level at his prime is still clearly higher than either of them. he doesn't have to dream of anything.

And since you overrate TB3 invincible aura to start with, that’s just gets into a circular fallacy impossible to demyth.

not at all I mentioned other players playing well also, not just the big 3.

16-current is the worst period in male tennis in open era. and I've seen full matches starting since the 70s (recorded/downloaded of course). and 20-current even worse in that. its PATHETIC.

that includes laver/newk/rosewall/smith/nastase years from 69-73 and then taking over by 2-H BH borg/connors and topspin(borg/connors), mac wizardry, lendl, then becker-edberg-wilander, then sampras-agassi-courier-chang-goran-krajicek etc followed by kuerten-kafel-moya gen (which was the weakest before 90s gen and injury ravaged too) ....

 

[Jav]

lol wut? djoko of USO 07 and USO 08 clearly better than alcaraz of USO 22. its not even close.

For you to speak so blatantly about a particular GS winner which even gave us a classic like the QFs* with Sinner you’d expect your folk would have at least won one of the two GS you argued was, quote, “clearly better, not even close”.

are you seriously bringing in beijing 2024 final? LOL.
djokovic beat #3, #2 and #1 at Montreal 2007, crushed nadal in Miami 07, IW 08 etc. in non-slams which any HC match of Alcaraz isn't at.
that's not even getting to his best level which is AO 2008.

alcaraz hasn't done **** comparable to that in any slam.

Lmao I swear I can’t with you Big 3 d*ck riders.

You have 5 to pick, not even 1 or 2.

RG2025 alone is more memorable than anything Djokovic had done prior 2011. Which, mind you, isn’t even AO2008. Probably something more the likes of Madrid’s 2009 SF.

Yes, Beijing 2024 F. You should revisit that.

lol, Rome 2025 final Sinner who crumbled after a set. bweh nadal in 2002 madrid SF.
again you are talking about feats when I am talking about level.

That Sinner was baggeling opposition left and right and playing at home against his biggest rival.

I laugh at your level.

24/25 RG alcaraz wouldn't have won a set vs RG 08 nadal either. he'd be made mincemeat of.

Debatable to say the least. Either way didn’t know Djokovic had Rafael as his first name on clay.

and tell me which Masters apart from rome 08 does alcaraz of 24 or 25 win in 07/08?

Probably IW and maybe some of the others.

I’ll reverse the question, as you always do. How would comparable-age Big 3 perform against Sincaraz? That is the proper question. And I already argue than 50/50, probably and even being generous to them.

Either way, tricky, since you’re counting the whole of the field plus him (n+1). Of course if you mixed ATGs into the same era you’d get a fiercer field than ever. If you knew about Statistics you’d get it.

You showed me you don’t with that 10% / 1% statement prior of yours though.

people rightly went gaga over Alcaraz's level in the TB of RG 2025 final. that's the level djokovic had to play to come back in RG 2008 final 3rd set from 0-3 down to make it 6 all (and he had a SP). but sure you watched tennis back then.

I definitely recognize when someone watch the past with tainted nostalgic glasses though. Definitely your case if you think Novak came back to something remotely close to Carlitos last tiebreak level vs Sinner.

Anyways, talking about TBs, since you seem to enjoy them. Just go watch Beijing 2024’s dude. You may have skipped that.

its simple for those who actually followed tennis. djokovic had a clear slump in 09/10 compared to 08

And Carlos had it for the later part of the 2024 season, yet here we’re discussing his most recent USO or AO performances to blow him out of the water vs 08’ Novak.

when he shows his true level in a HC slam (and not in IW/Beijing) we can talk. Until then 2008 djoko-alcaraz gap on HC >> their gap on natural surfaces

USO22 SFs serves you as a good first plate. Whether you prefer to forget that or dismiss he’s only 22.

You, a Fed fan among any players should respect that.

nope, you just showed accomplishments which is not an equivalent of level given the very weak era we are in.

Okay, sorry in regards of Carlitos for his rivals weaknesses. A pal called Jannik has certainly rised to the occasion in several times, but he’s an outlier just no better than DelPo or *checks notes* Hewitt (/s).

that you are ignoring djokovic's level in Queens that year and calling him a HC specialist is BS, especially given clay

He’s still a HC specialist by many metrics. No less than Carlitos is a natural one. Carlitos has literally won much more on HC to date, it’s not even comparable, you could cook the context like the biggest Novak fanboy and you still wouldn’t narrow the distance there.

not what your statements about djokovic on grass and clay in 08 show

?

I don't even know what that last line means

“Very good performancd on natural” <<< Alcar-esque performance on natural

 

[abmk]

Then you explain to me what you mean by this: >>>>> or this: >>>>

Oh, don’t worry, you already did, a 10% to 1% depending on conditions. Got it

Slightly better competition he got.

Gasquet, Lehecka, Rublev, Bublik, Djokovic and Alcaraz himself.

That is no easy path lol

washed up Gasquet, lehecka/bublik who didn't turn up. LMAO.
rublev who had a 6-5 record coming into RG this year.

and again fed in RG 2009 QF-F or just SF itself > alcaraz of RG 2025 final.
Final fed of course GOATed and alcaraz can only dream of that level at RG vs a good opponent.
(yes, early rounds struggles in 2R, 4R didn't show up in those QF-F matches)

Sinner’s (stats) were more spectacular. Considering the path he was carrying from Rome as well, I’ll still rank his feats definitely higher than DelPo’s.

that's fine. But I didn't say delpo was much better. so just stop.

 

[abmk]

For you to speak so blatantly about a particular GS winner which even gave us a classic like the SFs with Sinner you’d expect your folk would have at least won one of the two GS you argued was, quote, “clearly better, not even close”.

bro, it was QF, not SF. 2nd best match of this decade and wouldn't be in top 15 in the 2000s. so?

Lmao I swear I can’t with you Big 3 d*ck riders.

You have 5 to pick, not even 1 or 2.

RG2025 alone is more memorable than anything Djokovic had done prior 2011. Which, mind you, isn’t even AO2008. Probably something more the likes of Madrid’s 2009 SF.

Yes, Beijing 2024 F. You should revisit that.

not talking about drama. talking about level. shifting to drama is a cowardly copout.

AO 08 djoko >> any Alcaraz slam performance and its not close.

I watched beijing 24 final live pal.

Search results

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

and I actually remember things unlike you making out 2022 match between alcaraz and sinner to be the SF, not QF. thus conveniently erasing that alcaraz went 5 vs tiafoe at that USO?

I've given plenty of examples of players before big 3 and not even a fan of nadal or djokovic.

That Sinner was baggeling opposition left and right and playing at home against his biggest rival.

didn't Sinner get bagelled or breadsticked in the semi at Rome. He played mediocre in the 2nd set in the final. just stop.

I laugh at your level.

LMAO

Debatable to say the least. Either way didn’t know Djokovic had Rafael as his first name on clay.

not really.

Probably IW and maybe some of the others.

we were talking about clay there. Pay attention. which clay masters does alcaraz of 24/25 win in 07 or 08 in place of djokovic. answer is only one - Rome 08. that's it.

I definitely recognize when someone watch the past with tainted nostalgic glasses though. Definitely your case if you think Novak came back to something remotely close to Carlitos last tiebreak level vs Sinner.

lol, you didn't even watch RG 08 semi, did you? kid, when did you start watching?

Anyways, talking about TBs, since you seem to enjoy them. Just go watch Beijing 2024’s dude. You may have skipped that.

I watched it live pal.

Search results

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

5-0. repeat of their Beijing tie-break from Alcaraz? Hope so.

Edit: 6-0 now!

USO22 SFs serves you as a good first plate. Whether you prefer to forget that or dismiss he’s only 22.

You, a Fed fan among any players should respect that.

yes, fed together his game later than alcaraz. but I'm not going in about 01-02 fed, am I?
when Alcaraz actually raises his level to be better than prime Murray, we can talk. I hope he can do that, but he hasn't yet.

you are the one insulting common sense by saying that I'm forgetting Alcaraz is only 22 and simultanously saying he's better than prime Murray (best of his career) without one shred of evidence of that at Wim or USO (we already agreed about AO and YEC anyway).

I know alcaraz is only 22 and I also know he hasn't reached prime Murray levels yet at 3/4 slams and at the YEC.
he should reach at atleast one more slam. But let him do it first, FFS.

 

[Jav]

Congrats on your trolling sh*t-post attempt, @abmk

Sadly for you though true level is not built over words on internet posts or the aura you try to build on some player, "prime Murray" and so on. It's built on status, highlights, accomplishments, and the general consensus over that (see this post's poll, and we're only in 2025 mind you, when Carlos just turned 22). Carlos edges most of your favorite Big 3 players on his same age or even his best time rivals in the likes of the Scottish for their whole careers, already.

I know it's sad, but tennis moves on and so should you. These replies, like the ones you pass from the live thread get recorded here for posterity and you may seem like a moron even by your future self.

We'll revisit these and with perspective people will see how biased arguing something the likes of 08 Novak or his FH edges current Carlitos version on the tour.

Of course you will not believe, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this, and only time will tell. But trust me, it runs against you with this guy, Carlitos. Just as it did for Fedal with Novak.

Won't reply anymore though. Confort yourself with the idea Novak's sole first GS was more "magnificent" and meaningful than any of Carlitos first 5 as much as you want. We on the contrary will celebrate his new successes and records broken.

Cheers

 

[abmk]

Congrats on your trolling sh*t-post attempt, @abmk

Sadly for you though true level is not built over words on internet posts or the aura you try to build on some player, "prime Murray" and so on. It's built on status, highlights, accomplishments, and the general consensus over that (see this post's poll, and we're only in 2025 mind you, when Carlos just turned 22). Carlos edges most of your favorite Big 3 players on his same age or even his best time rivals in the likes of the Scottish for their whole careers, already.

I know it's sad, but tennis moves on and so should you. These replies, like the ones you pass from the live thread get recorded here for posterity and you may seem like a moron even by your future self.

We'll revisit these and with perspective people will see how biased arguing something the likes of 08 Novak or his FH edges current Carlitos version on the tour.

Of course you will not believe, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this, and only time will tell. But trust me, the time run against you with this guy, Carlitos. Just as it did for Fedal with Novak.

Won't reply anymore though. Confort yourself with the idea Novak's sole first GS was more "magnificent" and meaningful than any of Carlitos first 5 as much as you want. We on the contrary will celebrate his new successes and records broken.

Cheers

You just showed you didn't watch tennis before Alcaraz or so, pal.
Imagine thinking Alcaraz even came close in any of his slam wins to djoko in AO 08 level wise
and running away after being asked to show one match of Alcaraz where he played at a higher level than prime Murray at Wim or USO.

yes, Alcaraz is better than fed and djoko at this age, but not nadal. I know that's real, level wise. Stating it as is, unlike your delusional posts or deliberated twisted stuff.


try to watch tennis before 21-22 or so first.

lets see if you have one half-decent response or honesty.

this is the worst period in open era 16-current, 20-current even more so.

big 3 should not be winning 8 (nadal) or 12 slams post 30 (djokovic). federer won 4, but even he got off easy in AO 18 while showing some cracks.
that's my point. that;s not bigging up big 3. that's putting things in perspective. it happened only becasue 16-current (or 17-current since we are taking 30 onwards) is that weak.

When it takes 5.5 years for a truly great match in the decade, that says a lot.
22 USO QF is a shade below thanks to the meh/below par serving from both
and it won't make it to top 15 in 70s or 80s or 90s or 00s

me exposing you ignoring alcaraz 5-setter in USO 22 vs tiafoe is ****-trolling? ok, cool story, bro.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Moron can be used to Franky 30/40% of tw.

Time stops for no man.