List of notable players Carlos Alcaraz is already better than

Fabresque

Legend
From Open Era onward, here is a list of notable players (slam champions) Alcaraz at 20 years old is already better than

Andres Gimeno
Manuel Orantes
Mark Edmondson
Adriano Panatta
Roscoe Tanner
Vitas Gerulaitis
Brian Teacher
Johan Kriek
Yannick Noah
Pat Cash
Michael Chang
Andres Gomez
Michael Stitch
Sergi Bruguera
Thomas Muster
Richard Krajicek
Petr Korda
Carlos Moya (Nadal's coach)
Goran Ivanisevic (Djokovic's coach)
Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero (His own coach)
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Juan Martin Del Potro
Marin Cilic
Dominic Thiem
Daniil Medvedev

Here is a list of players that he is equal to or an argument can be made he is greater than

Stan Smith
Ilie Nastase
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Lleyton Hewitt

And finally a list of players that he is still behind, but is on the verge of passing them or has them in his sights for next year

Arthur Ashe
Jan Kodes
Guillermo Vilas
Jim Courier
Gustavo Kuerten
Andy Murray
Stan Wawrinka

I wanted to put this together to make sure everyone knows exactly what's happening. These are players he's already sharing a level with on the greatness rankings, at 20 years old, TWENTY. The fact he can retire tomorrow and genuinely have a greater career than the likes of Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Thomas Muster is incredible to me.
 

Lozo1016

Hall of Fame
Alcaraz is already a legend of the game for me. I know it's fun for some to go around calling guys like Hewitt and Murray "mugs" because they ONLY have 2 or 3 slams, but all of the guys in your 2nd and 3rd list are pillars of the Open Era.

I think Alcaraz will add to his resume, but he's a Hall of Famer even if he retires tomorrow to take up Pickleball. To be mentioned with some of those greats at 20 years and 2 months old is crazy.
 
Better is subjective. I dont think hes better than Rafter or Courier. Beating oldovic won't change that for me. Not better than Murray either. Yet? Hes about time with Hewitt now. Definitely not better than Peak Safin. You dont think peak Safin wouldn't bully this Djoker today? Look at what he did to him in 2008
 

Federer and Del Potro

Bionic Poster
Berdych not on the list. Lets go Dad!

tomas-berdych-of-czech-republic-celebrates-victory-during-the-mens-singles-fourth-round-match.jpg


Tie Break Tens counts as a slam win so he's made it!
 

Fabresque

Legend
Better is subjective. I dont think hes better than Rafter or Courier. Beating oldovic won't change that for me. Not better than Murray either. Yet? Hes about time with Hewitt now. Definitely not better than Peak Safin. You dont think peak Safin wouldn't bully this Djoker today? Look at what he did to him in 2008
Meant more in terms of greatness, for me they are a bit interchangeable.

Doesn't matter much as greater, better, Alcaraz is going to end up as both ahead of Rafter, Courier, Murray, Hewitt, and Safin. That's how good he is.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
How does that brother even function supporting Spurs
I will probably die at 60 from the stress and futility but… wouldn’t have it any other way
I'm a trophy logic merchant in tennis as well.

Wawrinka probably isn't better than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc.. but the trophies say he is.

Just like Alvaro Morata, maybe he is a wet towel of a striker but the trophies say he is better than Harry Kane.
Have you considered that if your logic comes out with the conclusion that Alvaro f-ing Morata, the man who is 99.99% genetically similar to a donkey, is clear of Kane…

Then maybe the issue is with your logic, not Kane?
 

Fabresque

Legend
I will probably die at 60 from the stress and futility but… wouldn’t have it any other way

Have you considered that if your logic comes out with the conclusion that Alvaro f-ing Morata, the man who is 99.99% genetically similar to a donkey, is clear of Kane…

Then maybe the issue is with your logic, not Kane?
If Kane wins the Bundesliga next year I will consider him one of the best strikers in football history. I’m not joking
 

TheNachoMan

Legend
If Kane wins the Bundesliga next year I will consider him one of the best strikers in football history. I’m not joking
Getting to finals and finishing 2nd with Spurs and absolutely bottling it is more impressive to me than winning the Bundesliga with Bayern. And I’m not joking either.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Meant more in terms of greatness, for me they are a bit interchangeable.

Doesn't matter much as greater, better, Alcaraz is going to end up as both ahead of Rafter, Courier, Murray, Hewitt, and Safin. That's how good he is.

We'll see. :cool:
 

Airspun

Hall of Fame
From Open Era onward, here is a list of notable players (slam champions) Alcaraz at 20 years old is already better than

Andres Gimeno
Manuel Orantes
Mark Edmondson
Adriano Panatta
Roscoe Tanner
Vitas Gerulaitis
Brian Teacher
Johan Kriek
Yannick Noah
Pat Cash
Michael Chang
Andres Gomez
Michael Stitch
Sergi Bruguera
Thomas Muster
Richard Krajicek
Petr Korda
Carlos Moya (Nadal's coach)
Goran Ivanisevic (Djokovic's coach)
Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero (His own coach)
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Juan Martin Del Potro
Marin Cilic
Dominic Thiem
Daniil Medvedev

Here is a list of players that he is equal to or an argument can be made he is greater than

Stan Smith
Ilie Nastase
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Lleyton Hewitt

And finally a list of players that he is still behind, but is on the verge of passing them or has them in his sights for next year

Arthur Ashe
Jan Kodes
Guillermo Vilas
Jim Courier
Gustavo Kuerten
Andy Murray
Stan Wawrinka

I wanted to put this together to make sure everyone knows exactly what's happening. These are players he's already sharing a level with on the greatness rankings, at 20 years old, TWENTY. The fact he can retire tomorrow and genuinely have a greater career than the likes of Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Thomas Muster is incredible to me.

Wow having to explain who goran and moya are In parentheses makes me feel old af
 

Chopin

Legend
I'm not sure if this thread is meant to be taken seriously, but as others have pointed out, who is "better" is subjective.

All players have different strengths and weaknesses and favor certain surfaces. Carlos is not "on the verge" of passing Kuerten on clay ...he doesn't have a single French and Guga has three, to take just one example. It's also impossible to compare across eras: how can you compare Alcaraz to Arthur Ashe? Also, some of the players on the list are still playing. I'm not convinced Alcaraz is "better" than Medvedev on hard courts, but regardless, they're still writing their stories.
 
Last edited:

Midaso240

Legend
He's better than all of them. There are still some who are "greater" than him.
I sort of lean towards this way of thinking as well. The best get better, as Agassi said. I don't think it's realistic to think that Courier (as great as he was in his own era) would have much of a show against Alcaraz even at 20
 

Cortana

Legend
He is 20 years old, won his 2nd slam and beat the GOAT in his late-prime in doing so. I don‘t think it gets better than that?

He‘ll dominate the tour once Djokovic retires.
 
I don’t think he’s equal to Safin, Hewitt or Rafter. Safin had 3 AO finals. He had a long and distinguished career. Rafter was winning and making slam finals over a five year period. Defended a slam. Hewitt made a bunch of slam finals and was no.1 for 80 weeks.
Alcaraz has only been winning big for a year and a bit. It’s amazing what he’s done but he has a good two years until he can equal those guys.
 

40Deuce

Rookie
If Kane wins the Bundesliga next year I will consider him one of the best strikers in football history. I’m not joking

You should be joking because if he plays for Bayern Munich who have won 11 of the last 11 Bundesliga titles it will be difficult to argue Bayern won the league because of Kane. They win 'anyway'. He is a great striker, reads the game well, makes great passes and knows how to finish give or take a penalty.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
From Open Era onward, here is a list of notable players (slam champions) Alcaraz at 20 years old is already better than

Andres Gimeno
Manuel Orantes
Mark Edmondson
Adriano Panatta
Roscoe Tanner
Vitas Gerulaitis
Brian Teacher
Johan Kriek
Yannick Noah
Pat Cash
Michael Chang
Andres Gomez
Michael Stitch
Sergi Bruguera
Thomas Muster
Richard Krajicek
Petr Korda
Carlos Moya (Nadal's coach)
Goran Ivanisevic (Djokovic's coach)
Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero (His own coach)
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Juan Martin Del Potro
Marin Cilic
Dominic Thiem
Daniil Medvedev

Here is a list of players that he is equal to or an argument can be made he is greater than

Stan Smith
Ilie Nastase
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Lleyton Hewitt

And finally a list of players that he is still behind, but is on the verge of passing them or has them in his sights for next year

Arthur Ashe
Jan Kodes
Guillermo Vilas
Jim Courier
Gustavo Kuerten
Andy Murray
Stan Wawrinka

I wanted to put this together to make sure everyone knows exactly what's happening. These are players he's already sharing a level with on the greatness rankings, at 20 years old, TWENTY. The fact he can retire tomorrow and genuinely have a greater career than the likes of Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Thomas Muster is incredible to me.
He's wasting no time! o_O
 

TennisManiac

Hall of Fame
From Open Era onward, here is a list of notable players (slam champions) Alcaraz at 20 years old is already better than

Andres Gimeno
Manuel Orantes
Mark Edmondson
Adriano Panatta
Roscoe Tanner
Vitas Gerulaitis
Brian Teacher
Johan Kriek
Yannick Noah
Pat Cash
Michael Chang
Andres Gomez
Michael Stitch
Sergi Bruguera
Thomas Muster
Richard Krajicek
Petr Korda
Carlos Moya (Nadal's coach)
Goran Ivanisevic (Djokovic's coach)
Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero (His own coach)
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Juan Martin Del Potro
Marin Cilic
Dominic Thiem
Daniil Medvedev

Here is a list of players that he is equal to or an argument can be made he is greater than

Stan Smith
Ilie Nastase
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Lleyton Hewitt

And finally a list of players that he is still behind, but is on the verge of passing them or has them in his sights for next year

Arthur Ashe
Jan Kodes
Guillermo Vilas
Jim Courier
Gustavo Kuerten
Andy Murray
Stan Wawrinka

I wanted to put this together to make sure everyone knows exactly what's happening. These are players he's already sharing a level with on the greatness rankings, at 20 years old, TWENTY. The fact he can retire tomorrow and genuinely have a greater career than the likes of Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Thomas Muster is incredible to me.
Yeah it's going to be a wild ride from here on out. Hopefully he can stay healthy. It's going to be hard to do in today's game.
 

Chopin

Legend
I sort of lean towards this way of thinking as well. The best get better, as Agassi said. I don't think it's realistic to think that Courier (as great as he was in his own era) would have much of a show against Alcaraz even at 20

Did you ever consider that the game has changed as a result of surfaces, strings, racquets, training etc.? Do you think Alcaraz would have beat Pete on the old grass of Wimbledon when confined to the technology of that time? No Luxilon (or similar poly).
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Legend
I don’t think he’s equal to Safin, Hewitt or Rafter. Safin had 3 AO finals. He had a long and distinguished career. Rafter was winning and making slam finals over a five year period. Defended a slam. Hewitt made a bunch of slam finals and was no.1 for 80 weeks.
Alcaraz has only been winning big for a year and a bit. It’s amazing what he’s done but he has a good two years until he can equal those guys.

Hewitt beat Sampras in the US Open final and Alcaraz beat Ruud. I think the former is more impressive. On the other hand, Alcaraz's Wimbledon win is more impressive than Hewitt's.
 

Midaso240

Legend
Did you ever consider that the game has changed as a result of surfaces, strings, racquets, training etc.? Do you think Alcaraz would have beat Pete on the old grass of Wimbledon when confined to the technology of that time? No Luxilon (or similar poly).
No probably not, but Sampras is a much higher tier player than the ones listed here. Alcaraz would be beating most of these players in any era, any surface. He's just more talented
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Yesterday, in the second set tiebreaker, Alcaraz was an unsaved set point close for the OP list to be cut in more than one half.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
I would add Djokovic to the list. We have very clear evidence of a peak-to-peak encounter that occurred yesterday.
 

Chopin

Legend
No probably not, but Sampras is a much higher tier player than the ones listed here. Alcaraz would be beating most of these players in any era, any surface. He's just more talented

Beating them how often? Players lose to others based on the day. There are also matchup issues and dynamics that you can't possibly account for. Are you saying Alcaraz is going to win every slam he enters for the next 10 years?

And do you think he'd play well with a wooden racquet? It's a big difference, no?

You don't think Safin would be a tough opponent considering he has wins over Sampras, Federer and Hewitt in slam finals? Or Del Potro? Del Potro's career was married by injuries, but he was capable of taking the racquet out of your hand.

I don't understand this thread. Are you arguing Alcaraz is more accomplished than those players in the first list because he has two majors and they have one? Or are you arguing that he's "better"? The former argument is predicted on these two slams being more valuable than any other accomplishments and the latter assumes you can account for various factors (depth of competition, relative value of slams during those periods, equipment, surfaces etc.). In any event, it seems unnecessary to make these cross-generational claims and present them as fact.
 

Midaso240

Legend
Beating them how often? Players lose to others based on the day. There are also matchup issues and dynamics that you can't possibly account for. Are you saying Alcaraz is going to win every slam he enters for the next 10 years?

And do you think he'd play well with a wooden racquet? It's a big difference, no?

You don't think Safin would be a tough opponent considering he has wins over Sampras, Federer and Hewitt in slam finals? Or Del Potro? Del Potro's career was married by injuries, but he was capable of taking the racquet out of your hand.

I don't understand this thread. Are you arguing Alcaraz is more accomplished than those players in the first list because he has two majors and they have one? Or are you arguing that he's "better"? The former argument is predicted on these two slams being more valuable than any other accomplishments and the latter assumes you can account for various factors (depth of competition, relative value of slams during those periods, equipment, surfaces etc.). In any event, it seems unnecessary to make these cross-generational claims and present them as fact.
Most of the time, at least 7 or 8 times out of 10. I mean, the thing with Safin and Del Potro is sure they could probably beat anyone on their day. But that's the problem, how often does that day come along? There's a reason Alcaraz is ranked at #1, his baseline level is higher than anyone else (bar Djokovic maybe). I think OP was mainly talking accomplishment, maybe I disagree with some. I believe it would take more than a year to surpass Murray's achievements for instance
 

Chopin

Legend
Most of the time, at least 7 or 8 times out of 10. I mean, the thing with Safin and Del Potro is sure they could probably beat anyone on their day. But that's the problem, how often does that day come along? There's a reason Alcaraz is ranked at #1, his baseline level is higher than anyone else (bar Djokovic maybe). I think OP was mainly talking accomplishment, maybe I disagree with some. I believe it would take more than a year to surpass Murray's achievements for instance

I've thought about this thread some more, and I see that the OP is trying to get people to appreciate how Alcaraz has won two slams at a young age. I respect that. I'll add that he's done it with great aplomb; yesterday's final was an iconic performance.

Yet, the more I think about the thread, the more I reject the premise that he's "better" than players that don't even play in this era. I don't see any reason to compare Alcaraz to Arthur Ashe. It's a facile argument. I'm not even sure how we're defining "better," but if we mean in terms of who would win in the modern era with modern equipment (if time travel were possible), there are probably players that haven't even won slams that would beat Laver!

Let me add: one's tennis career is about more than just the slam count--a modern fixation, especially on these boards--and there are a lot of components/aspects that go into a great career. When I think of Hewitt, I think of his tenacity, his destruction of Sampras at the US Open, his Davis Cup triumph over Federer, the #1 ranking, a slam in doubles, etc. It isn't just about, "well, Alcaraz will have 3 slams next year and Hewitt will only have 2, so Alcaraz is better." You mention Murray and how do we account for Murray having to compete against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their prime while Alcaraz never played Federer. The problem is we can't account for these things, and you don't have to. We can appreciate players in the context of which they play. In my humble opinion, no need to say Alcaraz is better than Vitas Gerulaitis.
 
Last edited:
Top