Holmes
Legend
As we know, Roddick is one of the least credited Wimbledon greats in history. A multiple time finalist, semi-finalist, quarter-finalist, and near-champion to boot. Over 6', served over 140mph, and net passed at approximately the same speed. On the other hand, we have Carlitos "the Little Man" Alcaraz who is a measly multiple-time champion with a massive-to-a-mouse forehand. Alcaraz defeated Djokovic twice in the finals, the first time being during a 3-slam dominant Djokovic season. Roddick lost to Federer in all 3 of his, and so of course, gets credit for that.
Now obviously, Carlitos has the whole "2 Wimbledon titles to none" thing in his favor, but is that truly enough to settle this debate?
Now obviously, Carlitos has the whole "2 Wimbledon titles to none" thing in his favor, but is that truly enough to settle this debate?
Last edited: