Is Alcaraz THE worst #1?

BGod

G.O.A.T.
For the sheer fact all of his weeks at #1 came due to Covid regulations affecting the true #1.

Previously the closest to this was Connors being banned from the French but Borg overtook his #1 spot.

Assume Alcaraz is never #1 again where does he stack up?

Rafter only has a single week but got it after the USO Triple crown and making Wimbledom semifinal. So then it goes to Muster and Rios both at 6. Again it was timing but Muster held a Slam and 3 Masters while Rios had a Slam Final, 3 Masters and a Slam quarter then 2 Slam quarters.

Alcaraz has held a Slam and 3 Masters for the first time then 2 Masters and then a Slam SF.

Alcaraz is at 28 more weeks than Becker and Wilander for starters.

So due to the circumstances of getting the #1 coupled with the amount of weeks make Alcaraz the worst #1 in history thus far? Or is he merely 3rd worst?
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Kuerten. 8 weeks. Was the #1 at the 2002 Australian Open where he lost 2R. Also was #1 at Indian Wells where he lost 4R to Gambil. Again, #1 in Miami losing 3R to Johansson.

At least Alcaraz won decent titles as #1 and made SF of the French and final of Wimbledon.

At least if we're talking about while they were #1..
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
For the sheer fact all of his weeks at #1 came due to Covid regulations affecting the true #1.

Previously the closest to this was Connors being banned from the French but Borg overtook his #1 spot.

Assume Alcaraz is never #1 again where does he stack up?

Rafter only has a single week but got it after the USO Triple crown and making Wimbledom semifinal. So then it goes to Muster and Rios both at 6. Again it was timing but Muster held a Slam and 3 Masters while Rios had a Slam Final, 3 Masters and a Slam quarter then 2 Slam quarters.

Alcaraz has held a Slam and 3 Masters for the first time then 2 Masters and then a Slam SF.

Alcaraz is at 28 more weeks than Becker and Wilander for starters.

So due to the circumstances of getting the #1 coupled with the amount of weeks make Alcaraz the worst #1 in history thus far? Or is he merely 3rd worst?
How he got there I can understand. But he’s definitely a number 1 level talent and has the accolades to do so.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
How he got there I can understand. But he’s definitely a number 1 level talent and has the accolades to do so.

Forgot to add Moya too.

The accolades for #1s has usually meant at least 1 Slam and some Masters yes. But if we compare him to Rafter, Moya, Muster, Rios it's not like he stands above them. So then when we look at his circumstances of getting #1 he profited from freak politics.

Look at what Murray had to do or the fact Wawrinka wasn't even a #2 for a week.
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
Forgot to add Moya too.

The accolades for #1s has usually meant at least 1 Slam and some Masters yes. But if we compare him to Rafter, Moya, Muster, Rios it's not like he stands above them. So then when we look at his circumstances of getting #1 he profited from freak politics.

Look at what Murray had to do or the fact Wawrinka wasn't even a #2 for a week.
Yeah I get that. It’s not a secret Novak would be a couple thousand points up at 1 if it weren’t for politics
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Yeah sure, that return that won him the second set was surely inferior and not worthy of a #1.

I'm old enough to remember Kyrgios, Tsonga, Berdych. Again guys like Moya and Rios were somewhat fortunate getting the points when they did but Alcaraz is literally your typical career #2 who got a once in a century gift.

I'll easily take Chang or Stich over him just for example.
 

johnmccabe

Hall of Fame
For the sheer fact all of his weeks at #1 came due to Covid regulations affecting the true #1.

Previously the closest to this was Connors being banned from the French but Borg overtook his #1 spot.

Assume Alcaraz is never #1 again where does he stack up?

Rafter only has a single week but got it after the USO Triple crown and making Wimbledom semifinal. So then it goes to Muster and Rios both at 6. Again it was timing but Muster held a Slam and 3 Masters while Rios had a Slam Final, 3 Masters and a Slam quarter then 2 Slam quarters.

Alcaraz has held a Slam and 3 Masters for the first time then 2 Masters and then a Slam SF.

Alcaraz is at 28 more weeks than Becker and Wilander for starters.

So due to the circumstances of getting the #1 coupled with the amount of weeks make Alcaraz the worst #1 in history thus far? Or is he merely 3rd worst?
Get a life
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
For the sheer fact all of his weeks at #1 came due to Covid regulations affecting the true #1.

Previously the closest to this was Connors being banned from the French but Borg overtook his #1 spot.

Assume Alcaraz is never #1 again where does he stack up?

Rafter only has a single week but got it after the USO Triple crown and making Wimbledom semifinal. So then it goes to Muster and Rios both at 6. Again it was timing but Muster held a Slam and 3 Masters while Rios had a Slam Final, 3 Masters and a Slam quarter then 2 Slam quarters.

Alcaraz has held a Slam and 3 Masters for the first time then 2 Masters and then a Slam SF.

Alcaraz is at 28 more weeks than Becker and Wilander for starters.

So due to the circumstances of getting the #1 coupled with the amount of weeks make Alcaraz the worst #1 in history thus far? Or is he merely 3rd worst?
What do you say now?
 

middleballs

Semi-Pro
For the sheer fact all of his weeks at #1 came due to Covid regulations affecting the true #1.

Previously the closest to this was Connors being banned from the French but Borg overtook his #1 spot.

Assume Alcaraz is never #1 again where does he stack up?

Rafter only has a single week but got it after the USO Triple crown and making Wimbledom semifinal. So then it goes to Muster and Rios both at 6. Again it was timing but Muster held a Slam and 3 Masters while Rios had a Slam Final, 3 Masters and a Slam quarter then 2 Slam quarters.

Alcaraz has held a Slam and 3 Masters for the first time then 2 Masters and then a Slam SF.

Alcaraz is at 28 more weeks than Becker and Wilander for starters.

So due to the circumstances of getting the #1 coupled with the amount of weeks make Alcaraz the worst #1 in history thus far? Or is he merely 3rd worst?
One of the absolute worst takes in TTW history. Never seen such a self own before.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
One of the absolute worst takes in TTW history. Never seen such a self own before.

Not even close, been posting over a decade the old Nadal is done threads aged much worse.


On another note would Alcaraz have been #1 today even holding 2 Slams without the Novak ban? I think just Novak playing Sunshine Double probably spoils that. Still a weak #1 and well below careers of non-#1s like Chang and Wawrinka so whatever.
 

Tranqville

Professional
I hope you guys stop commenting so that this embarassing post gets forgotten, until someone bumps it up 20 years later.
 

middleballs

Semi-Pro
Not even close, been posting over a decade the old Nadal is done threads aged much worse.


On another note would Alcaraz have been #1 today even holding 2 Slams without the Novak ban? I think just Novak playing Sunshine Double probably spoils that. Still a weak #1 and well below careers of non-#1s like Chang and Wawrinka so whatever.
Here we go, Alcaraz just beat the best player ever, 7 time Wimbledon champion, to win his second slam on his own worst surface. Kid is 20, but sure, try to change focus all you want.
 

jeroenn

Semi-Pro
Not even close, been posting over a decade the old Nadal is done threads aged much worse.


On another note would Alcaraz have been #1 today even holding 2 Slams without the Novak ban? I think just Novak playing Sunshine Double probably spoils that. Still a weak #1 and well below careers of non-#1s like Chang and Wawrinka so whatever.

The "Novak ban" was self-imposed, as he clearly stated himself multilple times. His choise, he owns the consequences and that are ND's own words. Having said that, Carlos today acchieved one of the most difficult things to achieve in Tennis and that is winning from ND on a Wimbledon final. This is akin to winning from Nadal on an RG final just a few years back. Nearly impossible (and that is ND's feat) but he did it all the same. Chapeau.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
The "Novak ban" was self-imposed, as he clearly stated himself multilple times. His choise, he owns the consequences and that are ND's own words. Having said that, Carlos today acchieved one of the most difficult things to achieve in Tennis and that is winning from ND on a Wimbledon final. This is akin to winning from Nadal on an RG final just a few years back. Nearly impossible (and that is ND's feat) but he did it all the same. Chapeau.

Uhmmm...no. You just can't compare Nadal even at 36 at the French to 33+ Novak at Wimbledon.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
The "Novak ban" was self-imposed, as he clearly stated himself multilple times. His choise, he owns the consequences and that are ND's own words. Having said that, Carlos today acchieved one of the most difficult things to achieve in Tennis and that is winning from ND on a Wimbledon final. This is akin to winning from Nadal on an RG final just a few years back. Nearly impossible (and that is ND's feat) but he did it all the same. Thumbs up
Djokovic has a negative record against Nadal in RG finals: 0-3.
:D
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
So you’re saying Novak isn’t comparable at Wimbledon to Rafa at RG? Are there any slams where Novak is?

…maybe the AO where he has 10 titles and is undefeated in finals?
Yeah this. Even so clay as a surface coupled with Nadal's timely rest periods give him an edge over Novak at the AO on hard and in those conditions. So you're comparing their physical conditions where I'd say Novak needs to be a couple years younger than Nadal when he already is a year younger in actuality.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
OP has egg on his face.
Do I?

Today based on my expected crapulence from Alcaraz I won 2 of 4 set prediction bets which rarely if ever happens. I bet both sets to go Novak at 6-2/3 with the lowest payout being 4.9 meaning 1 of 4 hits meant profit, the 2nd set 6-2 was a x15 payout. Nevermind Novak 2-0.

Alcaraz has now lost every match against Novak except for a 5 set marathon in which Novak had a ton of pressure, harder road and made some mistakes. He's 16 years his junior.

And still, ALL of his weeks at #1 were by default due to Covid. Daniil absolutely has a case here as well but 5 Finals vs. 2, WTF and even more deep Slam runs, etc.
 

tex123

Hall of Fame
Do I?

Today based on my expected crapulence from Alcaraz I won 2 of 4 set prediction bets which rarely if ever happens. I bet both sets to go Novak at 6-2/3 with the lowest payout being 4.9 meaning 1 of 4 hits meant profit, the 2nd set 6-2 was a x15 payout. Nevermind Novak 2-0.

Alcaraz has now lost every match against Novak except for a 5 set marathon in which Novak had a ton of pressure, harder road and made some mistakes. He's 16 years his junior.

And still, ALL of his weeks at #1 were by default due to Covid. Daniil absolutely has a case here as well but 5 Finals vs. 2, WTF and even more deep Slam runs, etc.
Yes you did. On Jul 17, 2023.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Yes you did. On Jul 17, 2023.
So you're saying because being Wimbledon champion he deserved to be #1? Imagine Pat Cash or Ivanisevic became #1 because the top guy was banned from playing several events?

Worst #1 doesn't mean least talented, it just means least deserving, which Alcaraz undoubtedly is, except for maybe Daniil.
 

SonnyT

Legend
List of bad players being #1: Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Ferrero. Whatever problems Alcaraz has now will be worked out.

All of those names surfaced in the 90's. Lots of tennis analysts are not impressed with the 90's, and its superstars of Sampras and Agassi. They regarded it as peculiarly weak.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
List of bad players being #1: Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Ferrero. Whatever problems Alcaraz has now will be worked out.

All of those names surfaced in the 90's. Lots of tennis analysts are not impressed with the 90's, and its superstars of Sampras and Agassi. They regarded it as peculiarly weak.

Yes, i understand, but what you are talking about is late 90's period specifically, which was known as the downfall period of Sampras and Agassi literally just had one great 1999 and even during THAT one he managed to choke couple of big ones away to Sampras! 90's isn't just about '97, '98 and '99 you know...neither Sampras, nor Agassi dominated that period, which opened wide open space for all those one-week wonders like Moya, Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov etc...
 
So you're saying because being Wimbledon champion he deserved to be #1? Imagine Pat Cash or Ivanisevic became #1 because the top guy was banned from playing several events?

Worst #1 doesn't mean least talented, it just means least deserving, which Alcaraz undoubtedly is, except for maybe Daniil.
How is he undeserving? He won two slam and two masters. Within a rolling 12.
 
So you're saying because being Wimbledon champion he deserved to be #1? Imagine Pat Cash or Ivanisevic became #1 because the top guy was banned from playing several events?

Worst #1 doesn't mean least talented, it just means least deserving, which Alcaraz undoubtedly is, except for maybe Daniil.
Alcaraz has 2 wins over Novak
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
List of bad players being #1: Muster, Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Ferrero. Whatever problems Alcaraz has now will be worked out.

All of those names surfaced in the 90's. Lots of tennis analysts are not impressed with the 90's, and its superstars of Sampras and Agassi. They regarded it as peculiarly weak.
Could have been worse if Pioline and Washington became Wimbledon champs.
 
Top