Mats Wilander > Carlos Alcaraz

[CHillTennis]

Carlos Alcaraz is a big fish in a pond so small that it might as well be a puddle.

Mats Wilander the great clay courter of the 1980s was dealing with Guillermo Vilas and Ivan Lendl at the same age.

If I had to chose between 21 year old Alcaraz and 21 year old Wilander, I am taking Wilander every time.

What say you?

Would Carlos win many slams, if he played in a different era?

 

[Aabye5]

Are you just trying to start a beef? After the Lost Gen Era, being better than Cilic ought to be the goal of anyone under 30.

Alcaraz has already well surpassed that.

 

[ollinger]

I've never understood this line of reasoning that says a player who may have had some tougher opponents must therefore have been a better player

 

[CHillTennis]

Are you just trying to start a beef? After the Lost Gen Era, being better than Cilic ought to be the goal of anyone under 30.

Alcaraz has already well surpassed that.

That's not true. People are already saying that Alcaraz is the greatest 21 year old of all-time.

I'm just stating the obvious. He has yet to surpass Wilander. Let alone Nadal or Borg.

 

[CHillTennis]

I've never understood this line of reasoning that says a player who may have had some tougher opponents must therefore have been a better player

I'll just say this much. If Carlos can't beat a 37 year old Djokovic on clay, then what chance would he have against a 21 year old Djokovic?

 

[GRASScaraz]

I'll just say this much. If Carlos can't beat a 37 year old Djokovic on clay, then what chance would he have against a 21 year old Djokovic?

Didn't a 21 year old Djokovic lose to Kohlschreiber at RG...

 

[CHillTennis]

Didn't a 21 year old Djokovic lose to Kohlschreiber at RG...

Yes, he did. But Kohlschreiber was a terrific player who frequently took sets off of peak Nadal.

He would probably win a few slams in this era.

 

[Aabye5]

Yes, he did. But Kohlschreiber was a terrific player who frequently took sets off of peak Nadal.

He would probably win a few slams in this era.

Med vs Kohlschreiber...how would that go down?

 

[Mainad]

I've never understood this line of reasoning that says a player who may have had some tougher opponents must therefore have been a better player

I've never understood the line of reasoning that says if you can play well in one era you can't in another.

 

[CHillTennis]

Med vs Kohlschreiber...how would that go down?

That would be a good match up!

I'd say that Kohlschreiber goes fifty / fifty with Medvedev on hard courts.

Med beats him on grass and indoors, but Kohlschreiber wins on clay.

 

[CHillTennis]

I've never understood the line of reasoning that says if you can play well in one era you can't in another.

But this era is terrible.

Look at the way that the US Open is unfolding.

It's been a complete disaster.

 

[KingCarlitos]

Alcaraz has done so much for tennis at this point practically saving us from Lost Gen, Why do we still insult him and compare him to guys like Wilander.

 

[CHillTennis]

Alcaraz has done so much for tennis at this point practically saving us from Lost Gen, Why do we still insult him and compare him to guys like Wilander.

Prime Mats Wilander would win almost everything if he competed today.

 

[KingCarlitos]

Prime Mats Wilander would win almost everything if he competed today.

Did Wilander even have a prime?, He sort of whizzed out before he reached his athletic prime.

 

[inflation_era]

Well Wilander has more slams so clearly he is better than Alcaraz, LOL. You have to be pretty simplistic to live on that kind of analysis.

 

[Shaolin]

It's like now that the GOAT debate is settled, people have just decided to make idiotic threads about Carlos to pass the time.

 

[timmyy]

Carlos Alcaraz is a big fish in a pond so small that it might as well be a puddle.

Mats Wilander the great clay courter of the 1980s was dealing with Guillermo Vilas and Ivan Lendl at the same age.

If I had to chose between 21 year old Alcaraz and 21 year old Wilander, I am taking Wilander every time.

What say you?

Would Carlos win many slams, if he played in a different era?

Vilas is 12 years older than Wilander and only beat him once. Troll.

 

[helterskelter]

Let's think this through. The #1 in 2024 is roughly on a par with the #150 in 2006. Now, the #150 in 2006 is a fair bit better than the #150 in 1985, of course, because tennis used to evolve and get better (before the dark times, before the Weak Era). I'd ball park it as saying that the #150 of 2006 is roughly on a par with the #75 of 1985. Thus, the #1 of 2024 is roughly on a par with the #75 of 1985. Thus, 21-year-old Wilander (the #3 of 1985) is obviously much better than Alcaraz (the #3 of 2024 - who is probably about on a par with the #100, perhaps the #120, of 1985).

 

[Tennfan123]

In what world would you have to choose?
Only one in which undermining Alcaraz is an all consuming policy.

 

[SonnyT]

Carlos would be Biggest Fish in any pond in any era!

 

[KingCarlitos]

Let's think this through. The #1 in 2024 is roughly on a par with the #150 in 2006. Now, the #150 in 2006 is a fair bit better than the #150 in 1985, of course, because tennis used to evolve and get better (before the dark times, before the Weak Era). I'd ball park it as saying that the #150 of 2006 is roughly on a par with the #75 of 1985. Thus, the #1 of 2024 is roughly on a par with the #75 of 1985. Thus, 21-year-old Wilander (the #3 of 1985) is obviously much better than Alcaraz (the #3 of 2024 - who is probably about on a par with the #100, perhaps the #120, of 1985).

I hope this is sarcasm.

 

[NeutralFan]

In what way he's better? In direct playing style? If so then he would get mauled by any top Player today.

 

[CHillTennis]

Vilas is 12 years older than Wilander and only beat him once. Troll.

1982 Vilas was better on clay than any mug from the current generation.

Just take a look at the results for the Olympics this year.

 

[I get cramps]

But this era is terrible.

Look at the way that the US Open is unfolding.

It's been a complete disaster.

Carlos Alcaraz is a big fish in a pond so small that it might as well be a puddle.

Mats Wilander the great clay courter of the 1980s was dealing with Guillermo Vilas and Ivan Lendl at the same age.

If I had to chose between 21 year old Alcaraz and 21 year old Wilander, I am taking Wilander every time.

What say you?

Would Carlos win many slams, if he played in a different era?

So were Andy Roddick and James Blake.

It didn't make a difference against Federer, did it?

Carlos Alcaraz is a big fish in a small pond that might as well be a puddle.

Mats Wilander, the great clay courter of the 1980s, was dealing with Guillermo Vilas and Ivan Lendl at the same age.

If I had to choose between 21-year-old Alcaraz and 21-year-old Wilander, I would take Wilander every time.

What would you say?

Would Carlos win many slams if he played in a different era?

You fill threads with supposedly proven conclusions that would make the most feeble-minded of half-wits laugh.

Propositions as typical of egregious wits as the ones you write, which seem to be the fallacies most akin to your charlatanism, are distinguished or identified because they do not demonstrate something to be true, something that can be subject to evaluation based on logical, factual, evaluable relationships. And if a proposition is not proven true, sophist, it cannot be held to be true.
In the best-case scenario, your propositions can be said to be inconclusive and conjectural.

So stop pushing users' buttons to entertain yourself if they enter a dispute caused by your bad faith.

De gustibus non est disputandum, so don't tease users because they have this or that idea about Alcaraz, Sinner, or whomever by comparing them to retired players they can't face on a tennis court. I think your research on that counts with null results.

 

[CHillTennis]

You fill threads with supposedly proven conclusions that would make the most feeble-minded of half-wits laugh.

Propositions as typical of egregious wits as the ones you write, which seem to be the fallacies most akin to your charlatanism, are distinguished or identified because they do not demonstrate something to be true, something that can be subject to evaluation based on logical, factual, evaluable relationships. And if a proposition is not proven true, sophist, it cannot be held to be true.
In the best-case scenario, your propositions can be said to be inconclusive and conjectural.

So stop pushing users' buttons to entertain yourself if they enter a dispute caused by your bad faith.

De gustibus non est disputandum, so don't tease users because they have this or that idea about Alcaraz, Sinner, or whomever by comparing them to retired players they can't face on a tennis court. I think your research on that counts with null results.

Hey White Knight,

Sorry to tell you mate, but your princess is in another castle.

I don't care what the fake news shills or internet ogres have to say about Carlos.

He's no successor to the Big 3.

I am done with the Fake News Hooligans, like Andy Roddick.

 

[legcramp]

okay boomer

 

[CHillTennis]

okay boomer

Not a Boomer. Just a seeker of the truth.

 

[legcramp]

Not a Boomer. Just a seeker of the attention.

ftfy

 

[Hansen]

Just a seeker of the truth.

truth is, wilander couldn‘t hit a winner from the baseline to save his life.

 

[CHillTennis]

ftfy

I'm not really an attention seeker. That's more of Andy Roddick's style.

 

[CHillTennis]

truth is, wilander couldn‘t hit a winner from the baseline to save his life.

Tell that to Pat Cash or Ivan Lendl.

 

[travlerajm]

Are you just trying to start a beef? After the Lost Gen Era, being better than Cilic ought to be the goal of anyone under 30.

Alcaraz has already well surpassed that.

I actually think the OP is onto something.

The problem with Alcaraz is that his goodness is an illusion propped up by circumstances.

Is he faster covering the court than Wilander? Sure.

However, when I try to envision peak Wilander playing a final at RG against bulky Carlitos, it’s easy for me to envision Wilander frustrating Carlos with precise depth, slices to his bh, and sneak attacks to net.

I watched the match between Carlos and Humbert this week. Carlos won easily, but only because Humbert couldn’t keep 3 of his NextGen wristy forehands in the court in a row. And there were many points where Humbert won the rally because Carlos’ low sw wide stretch fh retrieval was swatted by Humbert into the open court before Carlos could recover. Humbert would not even be a top 50 player in Wilander’s era.

It’s the type of weakness that Wilander would prey on.

 

[Turning Pro]

Next Joke.

And make it a better one.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Did Wilander even have a prime?, He sort of whizzed out before he reached his athletic prime.

He had that 1988 where he won 3 slams. Ever heard of it?

 

[Sport]

Non-controversial premise.

As of 2024, Wilander is much greater than Alcaraz because 7 Slams >>> 4 Slams.

 

[I get cramps]

I find it lovely to read the logical rigour with which the middle-aged users of this forum sustain their diatribes, especially in their endless fantasy match-ups with propositions that do not admit any contrary judgment. They are driven by the same spirit as the czars who issued the Ukases.

And what fun can these middle-aged guys have in pursuing this activity? Messing with the youngsters who are having fun watching the new talents play? We enjoyed the same phenomenon as these youngsters thirty-odd years ago, albeit without insidious middle-aged fools coming to spoil the party.

You know exactly who you are.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

Med vs Kohlschreiber...how would that go down?

Kohlschreiber is the exact type of player to upset Medvedev in an early round. One of those guys with enough variety and tennis IQ to really throw Med off his game.

 

[travlerajm]

I find it lovely to read the logical rigour with which the middle-aged users of this forum sustain their diatribes, especially in their endless fantasy match-ups with propositions that do not admit any contrary judgment. They are driven by the same spirit as the czars who issued the Ukases.

And what fun can these middle-aged guys have in pursuing this activity? Messing with the youngsters who are having fun watching the new talents play? We enjoyed the same phenomenon as these youngsters thirty-odd years ago, albeit without insidious middle-aged fools coming to spoil the party.

You know exactly who you are.

That may have applied to previous gens.

But the current middleGen has a stronger case, because the level at the top of the game can be proved to have crept backwards over the period of two decades. The only time in history when tennis didn’t advance forward.

Previous gens in the 80s and 90s used manly racquets with high swing weights. Guys like Wilander were enjoying technical advantages over their peers because they understood how to apply lead tape to improve their level.

Until pros once again learn how to play with beefier stix, the guys at the top will be at risk to be eclipsed by the next guy who does.

 

[Mustard]

Didn't a 21 year old Djokovic lose to Kohlschreiber at RG...

22-year-old. That loss was completely overshadowed by Nadal's loss to Soderling the following day.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

That's not true. People are already saying that Alcaraz is the greatest 21 year old of all-time.

I'm just stating the obvious. He has yet to surpass Wilander. Let alone Nadal or Borg.

You had to know making any observation about Alcaraz that's not teary-eyed worship would trigger some around here...which should not be triggering, if they really bought all of their own hype about him.

 

[soldat]

Carlos Alcaraz is a big fish in a pond so small that it might as well be a puddle.

Mats Wilander the great clay courter of the 1980s was dealing with Guillermo Vilas and Ivan Lendl at the same age.

If I had to chose between 21 year old Alcaraz and 21 year old Wilander, I am taking Wilander every time.

What say you?

Would Carlos win many slams, if he played in a different era?

He would destroy everyone, because it’s a hypothetical and I can make up whatever I want.

That said, I think Alcaraz has had to face tougher opponents and a stronger field, as the level of play and the sport evolves and has only gotten stronger and stronger over time. And despite all the modern challenges, Alcaraz will end up with a better career than Wilander, if not already.

 

[CHillTennis]

I find it lovely to read the logical rigour with which the middle-aged users of this forum sustain their diatribes, especially in their endless fantasy match-ups with propositions that do not admit any contrary judgment. They are driven by the same spirit as the czars who issued the Ukases.

And what fun can these middle-aged guys have in pursuing this activity? Messing with the youngsters who are having fun watching the new talents play? We enjoyed the same phenomenon as these youngsters thirty-odd years ago, albeit without insidious middle-aged fools coming to spoil the party.

You know exactly who you are.

Thirty years ago, the sport was in great hands thanks to four young Americans, a German, a Spaniard and a Sweede.

We were firmly entrenched in the compelling rivalries of Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Agassi and Sampras. The old guard of Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl were all free to retire from the sport without the fear of a cataclysmic meltdown. It was nothing like what we're facing today.

The reality is that the Big 3 are nearly out of the game. Only Djokovic is left standing and it's very unclear as to how much longer he'll be able to hold on.

Once he's gone, the only thing that is left are Sinner and Alcaraz.

Carlos has problems, he very erratic on hard courts and can go for long periods of time without winning.

Right now, there are serious questions about Jannik Sinner's doping incident. Should he have been cleared so quickly? Was he cleared over money? Was he in fact guilty?

These questions are not going to just go away.

It's time to get with the times!

This sport is in a lot of trouble right now. At least on a professional level.

 

[CHillTennis]

He would destroy everyone, because it’s a hypothetical and I can make up whatever I want.

That said, I think Alcaraz has had to face tougher opponents and a stronger field, as the level of play and the sport evolves and has only gotten stronger and stronger over time. And despite all the modern challenges, Alcaraz will end up with a better career than Wilander, if not already.

That's why we have a 36 year old cleaning house right? Because the field is getting stronger?

Oh wait, not once, but three times. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominated in their mid 30s.

 

[soldat]

That's why we have a 36 year old cleaning house right? Because the field is getting stronger?

Oh wait, not once, but three times. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominated in their mid 30s.

Again, why don’t we just wait and see, I predict various future slam winners aged 30+

 

[Lleytonstation]

You fill threads with supposedly proven conclusions that would make the most feeble-minded of half-wits laugh.

Propositions as typical of egregious wits as the ones you write, which seem to be the fallacies most akin to your charlatanism, are distinguished or identified because they do not demonstrate something to be true, something that can be subject to evaluation based on logical, factual, evaluable relationships. And if a proposition is not proven true, sophist, it cannot be held to be true.
In the best-case scenario, your propositions can be said to be inconclusive and conjectural.

So stop pushing users' buttons to entertain yourself if they enter a dispute caused by your bad faith.

De gustibus non est disputandum, so don't tease users because they have this or that idea about Alcaraz, Sinner, or whomever by comparing them to retired players they can't face on a tennis court. I think your research on that counts with null results.

Completely fair. Players from this era if you are going to rip into Carlos the shepherd.

van de zandschulp and Monfils > carlos

 

[CHillTennis]

Again, why don’t we just wait and see, I predict various future slam winners aged 30+

Then we have a scenario in which the young players of today are dominant against the young players of 10+ years from now (when they are old themselves) and this...somehow is supposed to be an improvement?

 

[travlerajm]

Again, why don’t we just wait and see, I predict various future slam winners aged 30+

How come there’s only 3 players over 30 in the top 35 ranking slots?

There was never a great age shift. The great age shift was made up to pretend that the young guys weren’t worse than the previous generation.

There was only The Great Level Dropoff.

 

[travlerajm]

Completely fair. Players from this era if you are going to rip into Carlos the shepherd.

van de zandschulp and Monfils > carlos

Monfils isn’t from this era.

He’s a broken down relic from two generations ago. But he can still beat Carlitos sometimes.

 

[NeutralFan]

Monfils isn’t from this era.

He’s a broken down relic from two generations ago. But he can still beat Carlitos sometimes.

GAS doesn't mean all top players should be 30+ , GAS means players can play close to their best years in 30s. GAS doesn't mean a nobody in 20s will suddenly become a world beater in 30s.

 

[travlerajm]

GAS doesn't mean all top players should be 30+ , GAS means players can play close to their best years in 30s. GAS doesn't mean a nobody in 20s will suddenly become a world beater in 30s.

So you think 2024 geriatric Monfils is playing close to peak prime Monfils level?