No. 1 in the world for the first time or First to win slams on all surfaces

[CHillTennis]

It got me to thinking watching the video of the former greats congratulating Sinner and all the adoration he's gotten from so many about him reaching #1 for the first time. Don't get me wrong it's a great accomplishment and especially being the first Italian man to achieve the feat but I don't see why Alcaraz being the youngest ever to win slams on all surfaces isn't getting as much or even more praise.

In any event, my question to you fellow TTW crazies is....what do you think is the bigger accomplishment? Personally I've always valued slams heavily over #1 especially an accomplishment like this that has literally never been done so what do you guys say?

I think these accomplishments are heavily inflated due to the obvious lack of depth and talent from pretty much all of the young players outside of Alcaraz and Sinner.

I would define this time period in the sport as being ULTRA weak.

 

[CHillTennis]

Totally agree

Also to me 3 slams is 3 slams, if Alcaraz had 3 us opens or 3 rgs he’d still be a 3 time slam winner and have achieved just as much

And I also do think there is an appropriate amount of hype around Alcaraz already, if he gets 1-2 slams a year for the next 15 years he will equal or break the big 3’s records, it won’t matter which surfaces he wins them on

It doesn't matter if he equals their number or surpasses it.

He's playing in a weak era and we all know it.

 

[soldat]

I think these accomplishments are heavily inflated due to the obvious lack of depth and talent from pretty much all of the young players outside of Alcaraz and Sinner.

I would define this time period in the sport as being ULTRA weak.

I actually think this era 2020-2025 is among the strongest ever, much stronger than 2000-2005 and perhaps just as strong as 2005-2020

 

[CHillTennis]

I actually think this era 2020-2025 is among the strongest ever, much stronger than 2000-2005 and perhaps just as strong as 2005-2020

Based on the fact that two 36 year old players made the rest of the tour look like they weren't even in the same league?

At least in 2004-05 we had grand slam champions in their 20s.

The way that Djokovic has been dominating the Next Gen is down right embarrassing.

 

[soldat]

Based on the fact that two 36 year old players made the rest of the tour look like they weren't even in the same league?

At least in 2004-05 we had grand slam champions in their 20s.

The way that Djokovic has been dominating the Next Gen is down right embarrassing.

I think I have made this point many many times but age != level in tennis.

There is nothing better about having a great run, winning 1 slam in your 20s and nothing else, versus winning 4 slams in your 30s

You simply refuse to admit that Djokovic played against a stronger nextgen field and kept winning

And I have always said that I think the field keeps get stronger each year, the level of play is higher across the board and the sport is more professionalized

 

[CHillTennis]

I think I have made this point many many times but age != level in tennis.

There is nothing better about having a great run, winning 1 slam in your 20s and nothing else, versus winning 4 slams in your 30s

You simply refuse to admit that Djokovic played against a stronger nextgen field and kept winning

And I have always said that I think the field keeps get stronger each year, the level of play is higher across the board and the sport is more professionalized

Djokovic lost more in his 20s than he did from age 31 to 36.

If the field is actually better today, then how do you explain them losing to a player who is older, slower, hits with less power and is far more injury prone than he was in his 20s?

Please explain.

 

[CHillTennis]

I think I have made this point many many times but age != level in tennis.

There is nothing better about having a great run, winning 1 slam in your 20s and nothing else, versus winning 4 slams in your 30s

You simply refuse to admit that Djokovic played against a stronger nextgen field and kept winning

And I have always said that I think the field keeps get stronger each year, the level of play is higher across the board and the sport is more professionalized

Djokovic lost more in his 20s than he did from age 31 to 36.

If the field is better today than how do you explain them losing to a player who is older, slower, hits with less power and is far more injury prone than in his 20s.

Please explain.

 

[soldat]

Djokovic lost more in his 20s than he did from age 31 to 36.

If the field is better today than how do you explain them losing to a player who is older, slower, hits with less power and is far more injury prone than in his 20s.

Please explain.

Except how do you know he was slower? And if he was indeed slower by how much?

How do you know he hit with less power? And if he did by how much? What matches?

What evidence tells you that during the age of 31 to 36 he suffered more injuries that affected his tournament results? I for one cannot immediately identify the evidence, if any exists at all.

And what skills could Djokovic have improved? Maybe his serve accuracy, groundstroke accuracy improved as he got older, maybe his tactical decision making improved as he got older, his net play could have improved, UE rate lowered, returns made and points won improved?

A prime of a man’s life can also be from 30-35 and not 25-30 or 20-25. Have you ever considered that possibility?

Have you measured the thousands of matches and the each players power, movement, accuracy over the last 3 decades from 1995 to 2025?

Your argument and many other posters arguments start with an assumption that a pro athlete must preform better when they are younger in age, which is not necessarily true, and if you want to make that claim you have to provide evidence for it.

I do see also see a trend where health and fitness is improved as we learn more about diet and the human body, athletes from the past simply cannot keep up with athletes today. Sprint records, swimming records, marathon records and tennis records will be broken, and your favorite player surpassed.

That is simply the way of it, you have to admit that Djokovic surpassed Federer, and also accept that Djokovic will likely be surpassed one day, be that a year from now or 100 years from now.

But as for today, Djokovic still remains the greatest tennis player to have ever lived.

 

[CHillTennis]

Except how do you know he was slower? And if he was indeed slower by how much?

How do you know he hit with less power? And if he did by how much? What matches?

What evidence tells you that during the age of 31 to 36 he suffered more injuries that affected his tournament results? I for one cannot immediately identify the evidence, if any exists at all.

And what skills could Djokovic have improved? Maybe his serve accuracy, groundstroke accuracy improved as he got older, maybe his tactical decision making improved as he got older, his net play could have improved, UE rate lowered, returns made and points won improved?

A prime of a man’s life can also be from 30-35 and not 25-30 or 20-25. Have you ever considered that possibility?

Have you measured the thousands of matches and the each players power, movement, accuracy over the last 3 decades from 1995 to 2025?

Your argument and many other posters arguments start with an assumption that a pro athlete must preform better when they are younger in age, which is not necessarily true, and if you want to make that claim you have to provide evidence for it.

I do see also see a trend where health and fitness is improved as we learn more about diet and the human body, athletes from the past simply cannot keep up with athletes today. Sprint records, swimming records, marathon records and tennis records will be broken, and your favorite player surpassed.

That is simply the way of it, you have to admit that Djokovic surpassed Federer, and also accept that Djokovic will likely be surpassed one day, be that a year from now or 100 years from now.

But as for today, Djokovic still remains the greatest tennis player to have ever lived.

Actually I don't have to accept that Djokovic surpassed Federer.

It's pretty obvious that a significant amount of Djokovic's grand slam titles were won after 2020 and came at the expense of the Next Gen mugs.

Did Pete Sampras improve after the age of 30? What about Ivan Lendl? Stefan Edberg? Boris Becker? What about Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Fred Perry, Jimmy Connors or Andre Agassi?

Why is it that all of these guys stopped winning slams after their early 30s.

I mean surely they were still in their peak prime at the age of 36, right?

 

[soldat]

Actually I don't have to accept that Djokovic surpassed Federer.

It's pretty obvious that a significant amount of Djokovic's grand slam titles were won after 2020 and came at the expense of the Next Gen mugs.

Did Pete Sampras improve after the age of 30? What about Ivan Lendl? Stefan Edber? Boris Becker? What about Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Fred Perry, Jimmy Connors or Andre Agassi?

Why is it that all of these guys stopped winning slams after their early 30s.

I mean surely they were still in their peak prime at the age of 36, right?

Those are players of the past of bygone times. They played in eras with worse diets, worse technology and less professionalism of the sport, and their results cannot be remotely compared with the competitiveness of the modern era, and the age at which they retired may not be indicative of human potential.

I would also think the overall pool of players playing and aspiring to be pro are lower in number in the past, and therefore the field would be generally very much weaker compared to today.

Moreover did any of these players strive to maintain their fitness and improve? Or did they pursue lifestyles that conflicted with their professionalism to the sport, and were forced to retire early when they could no longer preform to a high standard?

And finally a player does not necessarily need to improve, one can peak at level 9000 at age 20, drop to level 1000 at 25 and peak again at 9000 again at age 30 or 35. That player can win as long as no other players are above 9000 when he is 20 and 35.

Peak level is also determined by many factors, the level 9000 at 20 can come from speed and quickness, and the level 9000 at 30 may come from different sources, such as tactical experience and accuracy.

 

[CHillTennis]

Those are players of the past of bygone times. They played in eras with worse diets, worse technology and less professionalism of the sport, and their results cannot be remotely compared with the competitiveness of the modern era, and the age at which they retired may not be indicative of human potential.

I would also think the overall pool of players playing and aspiring to be pro are lower in number in the past, and therefore the field would be generally very much weaker compared to today.

Moreover did any of these players strive to maintain their fitness and improve? Or did they pursue lifestyles that conflicted with their professionalism to the sport, and were forced to retire early when they could no longer preform to a high standard?

And finally a player does not necessarily need to improve, one can peak at level 9000 at age 20, drop to level 1000 at 25 and peak again at 9000 again at age 30 or 35. That player can win as long as no other players are above 9000 when he is 20 and 35.

Peak level is also determined by many factors, the level 9000 at 20 can come from speed and quickness, and the level 9000 at 30 may come from different sources, such as tactical experience and accuracy.

Have you watched Jimmy Connors or Bjorn Borg? Connors remained competitive until he was nearly 40.

Borg retired early but he was one of the fittest players of his time.

 

[soldat]

Have you watched Jimmy Connors or Bjorn Borg? Connors remained competitive until he was nearly 40.

Borg retired early but he was one of the fittest players of his time.

Nope, I only know the name Connors.

So there is no reason to think that Connors remained competitive because the field was weaker when he was 40 than opposed to when he was 20. So I guess it's completely possible for Djokovic to remain competitive until he is 40, and break Rosewall's record for oldest slam winner.

 

[CHillTennis]

Nope, I only know the name Connors.

So there is no reason to think that Connors remained competitive because the field was weaker when he was 40 than opposed to when he was 20. So I guess it's completely possible for Djokovic to remain competitive until he is 40, and break Rosewall's record for oldest slam winner.

If you haven't seen the players from the past then you can't claim that the players from today would be able to blow them off of the court (just based on technology improvements and advancements in physical fitness training and nutrition.)

That isn't enough.

The young players have clearly been lacking something for the past 15 years which has led to the Big 3 running up the slam count.

It's not that the Big 3 aren't great.

But imagine an era where Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Chang, Agassi and Courier never come along.

How many slams would Connors and McEnroe have? 20-25 each.

The reason the Big 3 have so many grand slam titles is because they competed in an era that was filled with chokers and younger players that clearly weren't up for the challenge.

"Nadal is my idol, it would be my honor to lose to him."

"Maybe if I win set against Djokovic, he will take selfie with me."

Pathetic!

I can't stand Kyrgios, but at least the guy never sucked up to the Big 3.

 

[lim]

.

 

[soldat]

If you haven't seen the players from the past then you can't claim that the players from today would be able to blow them off of the court (just based on technology improvements and advancements in physical fitness training and nutrition.)

That isn't enough.

The young players have clearly been lacking something for the past 15 years which has led to the Big 3 running up the slam count.

It's not that the Big 3 aren't great.

But imagine an era where Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Chang, Agassi and Courier never come along.

How many slams would Connors and McEnroe have? 20-25 each.

The reason the Big 3 have so many grand slam titles is because they competed in an era that was filled with chokers and younger players that clearly weren't up for the challenge.

"Nadal is my idol, it would be my honor to lose to him."

"Maybe if I win set against Djokovic, he will take selfie with me."

Pathetic!

I can't stand Kyrgios, but at least the guy never sucked up to the Big 3.

If I need an eye test I will go to the optometrist, thank you.

I don’t engage in hypothetical matches and imaginary situations like if player X never existed

Again, you did mention that Connors was competitive until 40, I don’t have to watch his matches to know that he had elements of his game that allowed him to stay competitive at 40, not that players were weaker.

In fact the same progression would apply for him, younger players that arrived after Connors were stronger than that of his past era.

 

[CHillTennis]

If I need an eye test I will go to the optometrist, thank you.

I don’t engage in hypothetical matches and imaginary situations like if player X never existed

Again, you did mention that Connors was competitive until 40, I don’t have to watch his matches to know that he had elements of his game that allowed him to stay competitive at 40, not that players were weaker.

In fact the same progression would apply for him, younger players that arrived after Connors were stronger than that of his past era.

My friend, I will say this much. If you haven't seen watched tennis from the wood racquet era, then how can you know how those players would hold up against today's generation?

Let's take boxing for instance.

Most people that follow the sport will say that Mohammed Ali was the greatest boxer of all-time.

Some might even claim that Rocky Marciano was the greatest fighter ever.

These men fought many decades ago.

The sport has seen all kinds of improvements in training and technology since the 1960s.

Not to mention a meriod of great fighters have come and gone.

Yet very, very, very few of them can even come close to prime Mohammed Ali or prime Rocky Marciano.

That's because the training is only one aspect of the sport.

It doesn't make the athlete mentally tougher or more physically gifted.

At the end of the day, it's still just a tool.

For 15 years, we have witnessed a group of young players get absolutely decimated by the same three men.

Day after day, tournament after tournament, year after year.

There has never been a group that has failed to push out the older players.

From Perry and Budge to Federer and Nadal. It has never happened.

This year at the Australian Open, we finally had a Next Gen player break through against Djokovic.

But it wasn't the insanely flexible and fit man, who could go for hours and hours on end, then get up the next day and do it all over again.

No. That man is long gone.

The man that Sinner beat was a long ways removed from his prime.

He's looked slow and old for years now, yet he continues to win, because he only has to be better than the person on the other side of the net.

Can you imagine what a prime Djokovic would do to Alcaraz and Sinner?

These guys would struggle to even win sets.

Yes, even in spite of the improvements of today's game. They really are that bad.

 

[NeutralFan]

You’re talking about a user who actually uses terms like ‘alpha male’ without a hint of irony.

All opinions discarded.

What banned user are you? Attacking a poster straight away lol?

 

[soldat]

My friend, I will say this much. If you haven't seen watched tennis from the wood racquet era, then how can you know how those players would hold up against today's generation?

Let's take boxing for instance.

Most people that follow the sport will say that Mohammed Ali was the greatest boxer of all-time.

Some might even claim that Rocky Marciano was the greatest fighter ever.

These men fought many decades ago.

The sport has seen all kinds of improvements in training and technology since the 1960s.

Not to mention a meriod of great fighters have come and gone.

Yet very, very, very few of them can even come close to prime Mohammed Ali or prime Rocky Marciano.

That's because the training is only one aspect of the sport.

It doesn't make the athlete mentally tougher or more physically gifted.

At the end of the day, it's still just a tool.

For 15 years, we have witnessed a group of young players get absolutely decimated by the same three men.

Day after day, tournament after tournament, year after year.

There has never been a group that has failed to push out the older players.

From Perry and Budge to Federer and Nadal. It has never happened.

This year at the Australian Open, we finally had a Next Gen player break through against Djokovic.

But it wasn't the insanely flexible and fit man, who could go for hours and hours on end, then get up the next day and do it all over again.

No. That man is long gone.

The man that Sinner beat was a long ways removed from his prime.

He's looked slow and old for years now, yet he continues to win, because he only has to be better than the person on the other side of the net.

Can you imagine what a prime Djokovic would do to Alcaraz and Sinner?

These guys would struggle to even win sets.

Yes, even in spite of the improvements of today's game. They really are that bad.

Again you make these claims that Djokovic “looks” slow and old, which is unsubstantiated and not true.

I do not know what will happen if 20 year old Djokovic played 20 year old Alcaraz, as there are aspects of his game that were better and worse when Djokovic was 20. It is a futile exercise and tells you nothing, I would want to think Djokovic is better and hope he would win only because I’m his fan and not because there is a concrete way to substantiate my claim

It’s too early to tell but I would think that the top level of players today will start another era of dominance that lasts 10-15 years in a similar fashion to the big 3, or even longer.

Let’s see what happens in 15 years, based on your theory Alcaraz or Sinner or x player can only dominate until they are 30 and stop dominating, since a return to “normal” would mean there’s a younger player that must appear to stop them

Based on mine I think the next top level player(s) will dominate a similar or longer period, until they are 35+ and win a number of slams on the level of the big 3 in a similar time frame, in a similar fashion

 

[InsideOut900]

A prime of a man’s life can also be from 30-35 and not 25-30 or 20-25. Have you ever considered that possibility?

Yeah, but that's why people need to use their eyes and have an empirical understanding of the world.

In sports where you need fast muscle engagement over short bursts like sprints, changing of direction or engaging your legs to redirect the speed of the opponent's shot, people always peak in their early 20s at this level of professional sport.

So the only way someone could possibly peak in their late 20s or 30s if if they have severe technical deficiencies or confidance issues in their early 20s.

Novak's didn't do any improvements to his core strengths (FH, BH, return, shot tolerance) in his 30s, while losing explosiveness from aging and not really compensating with other aspects to a degree where he can break parity with his 20s.

 

[soldat]

Yeah, but that's why people need to use their eyes and have an empirical understanding of the world.

In sports where you need fast muscle engagement over short bursts like sprints, changing of direction or engaging your legs to redirect the speed of the opponent's shot, people always peak in their early 20s at this level of professional sport.

So the only way someone could possibly peak in their late 20s or 30s if if they have severe technical deficiencies or confidance issues in their early 20s.

Novak's didn't do any improvements to his core strengths (FH, BH, return, shot tolerance) in his 30s, while losing explosiveness from aging and not really compensating with other aspects to a degree where he can break parity with his 20s.

And how can you be sure of this claim you are making?

I would say if a player loses some of the explosiveness and sprint speed, the overall speed can be still high enough to peak at a high level

The match experience, decision making can make up for it, and with the addition of improvements in consistency and accuracy you can reach or even break parity.

Based on the performance of the big 3, I would say they hardly declined until very late in their careers, 36+.

I would also surmise future top level players will also exhibit a similar pattern, winning slams well into their 30s

 

[InsideOut900]

Based on the performance of the big 3, I would say they hardly declined until very late in their careers, 36+.

I would also surmise future top level players will also exhibit a similar pattern, winning slams well into their 30s

All non-Big 3 players in the last 20 years, even including late bloomers like Ferrer and Wawrinka, simply fell off after 31-32, so you are basing your claim of future players winning Slams in their 30s on the success of the best 3 Open Era players against a weak field, while having no fundation even when talking about players from the modern era.

The match experience, decision making can make up for it, and with the addition of improvements in consistency and accuracy you can reach or even break parity.

What consistency and accuracy improvements are we even talking about?

The best decision making, accuracy, consistency and whatever else comes when a player is in the zone.

Pro players play their games off instinct alone and discipline is only a way to hone their talent consistently.
That's why you can see some 20 years olds play smoking, peak level tennis, but fail miserably in the consistency department over longer tournaments. Because they already have the tools, but they don't have their act together mentally.

For Djokovic this first came in 2008 when he was 20-21 and then peaked in 2011 when he was 23-24. This was the perfect balance between physical ability, form and discipline. Everything else was worse.

I would say if a player loses some of the explosiveness and sprint speed, the overall speed can be still high enough to peak at a high level

Yeah, but the problem is that it's a cumulative factor, like aging or illness in general, you may not perceive it one day to another, but give in 10 years or more and you can see wrinkles on your face or your joint pain getting worse and so on.

Djoko already lost some speed and explosiveness in 2014-2016 compared to 2011-2013, then again in 2018-2019, then again post-pandemic and so on.

The cumulative effect is great on a player with a limited pro career because he is playing thin margins and even 1 layer of decline is significant, but like 4? At some point someone gotta acknowledge there is a significant change there even if the eye readjusts and still believe that is a high level.

Obviously he was still doing well because his rivals are not great technical and physical talents compared to his rivals from his 20s, heck, Djoko at 36 last year was a cleaner mover and ballstriker than both Carlos and Sinner.

 

[Humble Crumble]

What banned user are you? Attacking a poster straight away lol?

I am actually a new user. I just hate anti-social posters and weirdos.

 

[zagor]

More slams means more money and more popularity

Number 1 on the computer means nothing much ...

Yeah but Sinner has a slam (beating a defending champion in SF) and is expected to win more and be one of the faces of tennis in the year to come. Him reaching #1 is kind of a big deal.
Alcaraz is seen as a better player of course, rightfully so.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The majority of posters here are probably unaware that USO used to be on clay or that the AO used to be on grass.

They're too uninformed to know Jimmy Connors won the USO on clay, grass and HC? God help them for posting on a tennis forum then.

 

[soldat]

All non-Big 3 players in the last 20 years, even including late bloomers like Ferrer and Wawrinka, simply fell off after 31-32, so you are basing your claim of future players winning Slams in their 30s on the success of the best 3 Open Era players against a weak field, while having no fundation even when talking about players from the modern era.


What consistency and accuracy improvements are we even talking about?

The best decision making, accuracy, consistency and whatever else comes when a player is in the zone.

Pro players play their games off instinct alone and discipline is only a way to hone their talent consistently.
That's why you can see some 20 years olds play smoking, peak level tennis, but fail miserably in the consistency department over longer tournaments. Because they already have the tools, but they don't have their act together mentally.

For Djokovic this first came in 2008 when he was 20-21 and then peaked in 2011 when he was 23-24. This was the perfect balance between physical ability, form and discipline. Everything else was worse.


Yeah, but the problem is that it's a cumulative factor, like aging or illness in general, you may not perceive it one day to another, but give in 10 years or more and you can see wrinkles on your face or your joint pain getting worse and so on.

Djoko already lost some speed and explosiveness in 2014-2016 compared to 2011-2013, then again in 2018-2019, then again post-pandemic and so on.

The cumulative effect is great on a player with a limited pro career because he is playing thin margins and even 1 layer of decline is significant, but like 4? At some point someone gotta acknowledge there is a significant change there even if the eye readjusts and still believe that is a high level.

Obviously he was still doing well because his rivals are not great technical and physical talents compared to his rivals from his 20s, heck, Djoko at 36 last year was a cleaner mover and ballstriker than both Carlos and Sinner.

First point is I believe in progression, players get stronger over time and fundamentally any ATG exists to be surpassed. We have not analyzed the data but I do believe if you do the data will show it to be true.

Any person who claims that a past player will remain an ATG forever to me is clinging to nostalgia and unable to face the reality.

Tennis tournaments are also about winning matches, and because of the nature of the scoring system it is skewed towards players who are good at winning critical points. Djokovic does this better than anybody and I think that’s one of the main reasons he is the GOAT.

Again and again I will repeat this, in tennis age != peak level. In tennis, having every physical advantage does not mean your tennis level is higher. I think tactical strategy, consistency, accuracy are major factors. Therefore it is quite common and natural for 20 year olds to lose to 30 year olds who have more experience and know how to win matches.

We also know it’s possible for ATGs to win in their 30s, based on the improvements in knowledge, tennis technology and diet, I do think players today are stronger than those of the past.

I know it is difficult for you to admit.

Sampras surpassed Emerson, Federer surpassed Sampras, Nadal surpassed Federer and Djokovic now has surpassed everyone.

I know for sure that it is extremely likely that Djokovic himself will be surpassed in the future.

It is the natural way of things, and the best to find out is to come back in 20 years when other tennis players replicate what Djokovic has done. Already players like Sinner and Alcaraz have adopted Djokovic’s style of play.

All court, strong consistent, deep ground strokes, complemented with a stable/strong serve and net play to close points. Sliding, and sliding open stance backhands is now a staple, each player has some kind of drop shot, and a defensive slice to try to reset points. Finally, all players need some kind of physical endurance element in case you need to play 5 sets with 50 shot rallies.

I think the next 20 years of tennis will be very very interesting, so let’s just see what happens.

 

[Incognito]

It doesn't matter if he equals their number or surpasses it.

He's playing in a weak era and we all know it.

As oppose to raonic and the rest of the 90s lost gen?

 

[InsideOut900]

Again and again I will repeat this, in tennis age != peak level. In tennis, having every physical advantage does not mean your tennis level is higher. I think tactical strategy, consistency, accuracy are major factors. Therefore it is quite common and natural for 20 year olds to lose to 30 year olds who have more experience and know how to win matches.

This statament is fundamental to your argument and wrong in every way.

First I am not talking about physical advantage between 2 players, I am talking about physical decline between younger and older versions of the same player.

Secondly, what sample of example do you have to claim players improve consistency and accuracy later in the career. A player at their peak maturity will have the best level sustainance and shot accuracy, not a geriatric.

And lastly, when was it ever common for a 20 years olds to lose to a 30 years olds at the top of the game? Look at the average age of the top 10 over like 50 years and come back. The sport was always dominated by players in their 20s until 2017.

 

[SonnyT]

All of Carlos' 3 majors were well deserved. In one, he defeated Djokovic in 5. In the other 2, he defeated his closest competitor in 5. Did anyone else get his first 3 majors in each one he won a match in 5?

 

[Gary Duane]

Why am I getting this unshakable feeling that the Alcaraz v Sinner fan wars are going to be even worse than what we saw during the big 3 era...

Stupidity is eternal.