Is Carlos a top 5 teenage player of all time?

[The Guru]

I'm a big Carlos guy and think he's a stud and has the potential to be an inner circle HOFer but can we at least acknowledge he has been very fortunate to have the resume he has. To win the USO he had to survive three five setters a match point on his opponent's serve two set points that were likely game ending if he lost them in the final and he had all this struggle in a very favorable draw. Not to mention the prohibitive favorite and best player in the world was banned the world number 2 and a guy who was close to winning the last two years was also gone and the other top guys and favorites (Rafa, Med, Stef, Nick) all crashed out. To get to number 1 he had the luck of major injuries to multiple other top contenders as well as again the banning of the best player in the world from most tournaments this season. He also has a historically low amount of points for a world number 1. And oh yeah he's playing in one of the weaker years in tour history. He's not 20 yet and has some time to add to his teenage resume but we gotta add some context to his accomplishments thus far. It's a little different than say what teenage Sampras was facing in 1990 in a field stuffed to the brim with strong contenders.

 

[aldeayeah]

Washed Cilic is nowhere near the level of the guys in question. Safin would have crushed Tiny Carlos, too. Maybe even worse than Roddick. Entirely different level of tennis compared to what we're seeing now.

On a good day Safin could crush anyone tbf, there's an argument to say he has the highest peak ever with his insane serve+return+power baselining skills.

 

[NonP]

As all-around players the only teens clearly above Carlitos in the OE are Boris and Pete. Even under-20 Borg was a tad too green on faster surfaces/in the forecourt to challenge these 2 who already wielded a GOAT serve to boot.

Don't really care about achievements, but if I had to pick just one I'd go with Chang's '89 RG. Still the gutsiest, boldest statement ever from a teen, let alone a 17-year-old.

The BOAT run belongs to Pistol, though.

 

[mattennis]

Rosewall won 2 slams in 1953, the Aussie and the French, halfway to the grand slam, he was seeded number 1 at Wimbledon that year….he was 18 years old at the time…..

Yes, but Pancho Gonzalez, Pancho Segura, Jack Kramer, and some other very good pros weren't there...

 

[mattennis]

.

 

[jorjipy]

Yes, but Pancho Gonzalez, Pancho Segura, Jack Kramer, and some other very good pros weren't there...

Wow…. What an attitude…..

Borg won his slams without Connors in the field, and Alcaraz won his slam without Djokovic and Zverev in the field….

you feel better now?

 

[thrust]

I think he sneaks into the top 5 as well. GOAT teens in men's tennis in no order:

- Rafa
- Borg
- Wilander
- Becker
- Carlitos

Tiny Carlos still has one more major, 5 Masters, a WTF, and a YEN1 up for grabs until he turns 20 as well

Borg- I don't think Masters was such a big deal in Borg's day? Very close though
Rafa
Wilander
Beckeer
Carlos

 

[thrust]

Rosewall won 2 slams in 1953, the Aussie and the French, halfway to the grand slam, he was seeded number 1 at Wimbledon that year….he was 18 years old at the time…..

The following year Ken reached the finals at Wimbledon. For some reason, I think due to the Aussie Tennis Association, he did not play the French in 54 or 55.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I think he sneaks into the top 5 as well. GOAT teens in men's tennis in no order:

- Rafa
- Borg
- Wilander
- Becker
- Carlitos

Why in the world is Nadal with one slam as a teen ahead of the players who had two majors -- Becker, Mats, and Borg? Masters tourneys then were total non-entities, slams still are the determining factor in greatness.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Why in the world is Nadal with one slam as a teen ahead of the players who had two majors -- Becker, Mats, and Borg? Masters tourneys then were total non-entities, slams still are the determining factor in greatness.

“In no order”

 

[abmk]

Sampras should probably be 5th because his US open win seems impressive as he beat 4 grand slam winners back to back and 3 of them were seeded in the top 10, a better achievement than this US open win by Alcaraz.

Sampras' USO 90 was significantly more impressive than Alcaraz's. But rest of the year, no. No other slam QFs, no masters level finals even.

 

[Booger]

Sampras' USO 90 was significantly more impressive than Alcaraz's. But rest of the year, no. No other slam QFs, no masters level finals even.

Completely different level of talent compared to current weak sauce era, though.

 

[Wander]

Rosewall won 2 slams in 1953, the Aussie and the French, halfway to the grand slam, he was seeded number 1 at Wimbledon that year….he was 18 years old at the time…..

But these are amateur Slams.

How high would people rate 2010s Slam winners if Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray had all been scooped up to by a pro tour where they were not allowed to play in Slams. This is basically what these 50s Slams are like.

 

[Booger]

But these are amateur Slams.

How high would people rate 2010s Slam winners if Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray had all been scooped up to by a pro tour where they were not allowed to play in Slams. This is basically what these 50s Slams are like.

Which era is weaker, post federer era or 50's slams?

 

[Wander]

Which era is weaker, post federer era or 50's slams?

All 50s and 60s amateur era Slams are weaker than any era since then.

 

[Booger]

All 50s and 60s amateur era Slams are weaker than any era since then.

We need to find some really old guys to confirm.

 

[abmk]

Completely different level of talent compared to current weak sauce era, though.

true. Yet Sampras should've done better in other events for top 5 teenager in open era.

 

[jorjipy]

But these are amateur Slams.

How high would people rate 2010s Slam winners if Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray had all been scooped up to by a pro tour where they were not allowed to play in Slams. This is basically what these 50s Slams are like.

Where were all the other teens winning slams in the amateur era? Guess it wasn’t that easy….

And it’s not as if Rosewall didn’t go on to prove himself one of the best players ever as an adult…..as a pro and then in the open era when he was 34!

So I stand by what I say

 

[arvind13]

Alcaraz being a better shotmaker than Roddick doesn't matter if he keeps getting broken while Roddick keeps holding.
the serve of Roddick is a massive advantage. that serve+fh means he keeps holding at USO.

over the year, I'd take Alcaraz 22 over Roddick 01, but at USO, I might actually go with Roddick in a one on one.

Hewitt USO 00 vs Alcaraz USO 22 is close.
Hewitt's clearly better returner and steadier while Alcaraz is the better shotmaker.
Year wise, also it's close.

good points. I disagree about roddick and uso but its a small disagreement. alcaraz will also most probably improve the different facets of his game in the coming years. he has improved a lot within one year. probably has a higher ceiling than roddick and hewitt imo

 

[mike danny]

I'm a big Carlos guy and think he's a stud and has the potential to be an inner circle HOFer but can we at least acknowledge he has been very fortunate to have the resume he has. To win the USO he had to survive three five setters a match point on his opponent's serve two set points that were likely game ending if he lost them in the final and he had all this struggle in a very favorable draw. Not to mention the prohibitive favorite and best player in the world was banned the world number 2 and a guy who was close to winning the last two years was also gone and the other top guys and favorites (Rafa, Med, Stef, Nick) all crashed out. To get to number 1 he had the luck of major injuries to multiple other top contenders as well as again the banning of the best player in the world from most tournaments this season. He also has a historically low amount of points for a world number 1. And oh yeah he's playing in one of the weaker years in tour history. He's not 20 yet and has some time to add to his teenage resume but we gotta add some context to his accomplishments thus far. It's a little different than say what teenage Sampras was facing in 1990 in a field stuffed to the brim with strong contenders.

You have a valid point, but Z could've been a slam winner too and massed it up while having the easiest draw of all time. Besides, Tsits and Med were in the draw, why couldn't they take advantage?

 

[mike danny]

As all-around players the only teens clearly above Carlitos in the OE are Boris and Pete. Even under-20 Borg was a tad too green on faster surfaces/in the forecourt to challenge these 2 who already wielded a GOAT serve to boot.

Don't really care about achievements, but if I had to pick just one I'd go with Chang's '89 RG. Still the gutsiest, boldest statement ever from a teen, let alone a 17-year-old.

The BOAT run belongs to Pistol, though.

I can't see any teenager today winning a slam by throwing moonballs and underhand serves like Chang did. How Lendl lost that match I'll never understand.

 

[mike danny]

good points. I disagree about roddick and uso but its a small disagreement. alcaraz will also most probably improve the different facets of his game in the coming years. he has improved a lot within one year. probably has a higher ceiling than roddick and hewitt imo

He does because he is more complete than the 2 of them overall. Except the serving part.

 

[Wander]

Where were all the other teens winning slams in the amateur era? Guess it wasn’t that easy….

And it’s not as if Rosewall didn’t go on to prove himself one of the best players ever as an adult…..as a pro and then in the open era when he was 34!

So I stand by what I say

Rosewall was an incredible player. But the fact is that he didn't become the best player in the world until 1961 when he was 26 years old. Rosewall himself said (after experiencing both) that there was a huge gap between professional and amateur levels. He wouldn't have even sniffed at a #1 seed at Wimbledon in 53 if tennis had been open.

 

[CHillTennis]

No chance. Nadal, Becker, Chang, Borg, Sampras and Wilander sent shockwaves through the tennis community when they won their grand slam titles.

Alcaraz's triumph was entirely predictable due to the weak competition.

 

[Blahovic]

I'd have to say yes, especially when you take into account the modern era and the physical development that's made it harder for teenagers to reach the top of the tour.