But you said even if you beat one, you have to beat the other. Other than Thiem a couple of times, no one had to beat both of them. The Next Gen always failed at the first hurdle.Since 2017, at the last 23 slams the winners were:
Novak Djokovic 9 times;
Rafael Nadal 8 times;
Roger Federer 3 times;
Dominic Thiem, Daniil Medvedev and Carlos Alcaraz combined 3 times, all at US Open.
My point is, in order to win a slam, you'll probably have to beat either Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal on the way to it. Except if you have a lucky draw like Thiem or Alcaraz, but Thiem either way deserved it. That young Spaniard simply has his stars aligned this year, and we'll all see that when he won't win a single slam next year.
If he wins it, and by beating Novak or Rafa, I'll accept that I was wrong with no problems.
Yeah well, I don't think I'll continue conversation on this topic with you after this statement of yours.
I agree Alcaraz was fortunate. But why weren't the 20 somethings capable of taking advantage in his place? As of now, Carlos has won a slam and has been no.1 at only 19, equaling the entire Next Gen here.US Open today is a joke tournament comparing to US Open in first decade of 21st century. Reason? There was a man called Roger Federer who was beating everyone there and winning it with ease almost.
In the year when Nadal was 19 years old (Alcaraz' 2022 in comparison), he won a Grand Slam and four Masters 1000 titles (Alcaraz 1 GS and 2 Masters). Next year, he won another Roland Garros just turning 20 during the tournament. Before that, he had 50+ matches won in a row on clay, a feat that continued after Roland Garros 2006. He literally won everything on clay, he already became clay master at teenage years.
So, you are comparing the clay God to a kid, really. Alcaraz has yet to show himself. Let me see him beat Nadal or Djokovic in Grand Slam, then I'll say he is the real deal. Because those guys are still the best in bo5 matches, not Sinner, Ruud, Khachanov, Tiafoe, whoever. Even if you beat one of them, there's that other guy. That's how it would have been if Djokovic played in USO, Alcaraz would have to beat him in order to win it probably.
Because some 20 somethings will be better at 23, or 26, or even 30.I agree Alcaraz was fortunate. But why weren't the 20 somethings capable of taking advantage in his place? As of now, Carlos has won a slam and has been no.1 at only 19, equaling the entire Next Gen here.
I meant why were all the other 20 somethings already present not able to take advantage of the situation? Ok, Zverev is injured, but what about Tsitsipas? Med? Berrettini?Because some 20 somethings will be better at 23, or 26, or even 30.
Medvedev was playing challengers when he was 20.
This guy peaked early, for Christ's sake he has grays in his hair. His face look like he's 25, as well as his body.
He is wonderkid, but he won't be winning 30 slams, like some here expect and say.
I don't know, good question. We should ask them for an answer.I meant why were all the other 20 somethings already present not able to take advantage of the situation? Ok, Zverev is injured, but what about Tsitsipas? Med? Berrettini?
Med's problems started before all this anyway.I don't know, good question. We should ask them for an answer.
I think Zverev would have win this US Open if he was healthy. Tsitsipas is obviously in a very bad form, and Berrettini was recovering from injury. Medvedev is in bad streak of games too. It's not easy to build the momentum and form when you are unable to play in tournaments and compete with the best. Unless you are Djokovic.