Roddick calls Carlos "the most complete 19 year old tennis player I've ever seen"

[MissileBackHand99]

Interesting discussion. Rafa's year when he turned 19 in '05 was ridiculous--11 titles, 4 MS 1000 (2 on HC in Canada and an epic 5-setter indoors in Madrid), and was 2 points away from another MS title in Miami vs Fed. Also dethroned Coria as the "king of clay" with two terrific wins in MC and Rome. Oh and won the French Open. And was doing so against tougher competition than Carlos is (not his fault at all). Also, Becker was a 2-time Wimbledon champ by 19, in a SUPER TOUGH era

 

[The Blond Blur]

USOpen , IW, Miami, youngest ever Miami open winner at 18. Nadal was having nothing at 18. Carlito won a slam , and another hard court masters again in year 19. Second youngest ever IW champion, second youngest US Open winner. Do you realize how good this is.
If you think Alcaraz had weak competition, look at Nadal's draw at Rogers Cup. He had AS WEAK DRAWS AS Alcaraz. And Alcaraz won a slam on HC. Argument over.

So much wrong with this post.

1. Tiny Carl wasn’t 18 when he won the USO Open or IW. He was 19.
2. RAFA won MC and Rome at 18, so again wrong.
3. RAFA’s Rogers Cup win included beating Agassi in the F who’s and infinitely better player than Ruud the guy Carl beat to win Miami.

 

[MeatTornado]

Maybe not, but Federer did beat Nadal in the 2005 Miami final. Nadal was achieving a phenomenal amount while still a teenager. The only odd losses in this whole period once he surged up the rankings were on grass (to Waske and Muller at Halle and Wimbledon), to Berdych in Cincinnati after having multiple match points, and to Blake at the US Open. The rest of his days as a teenager, he came back from the foot injury to beat Federer in the finals of Dubai, Monte Carlo and Rome.

At the end of his time as a teenager, Nadal had won 16 tournaments, which included 1 French Open, 2 Monte Carlos, 2 Italian Opens, 1 Canadian Open, 1 Madrid Indoor, and had also won 1 Davis Cup. I mentioned the 79-10 win-loss record for 2005, and the clay court winning streak that stood at 55 wins in a row (an all-time record that eventually reached 81) at the end of his days as a teenager.

You can stop quoting me his resume. I'm fully aware of how good teenage Nadal was. And I specifically pointed out 05 Miami in my original post.

None of this has anything to do with Federer.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Try to be objective. Rafa did not have either the drop shot or volley that Alcaraz has at 19. Nowhere close.Alcatraz also has the better serve by far if we compare them both at 19.

Rafa always had the drop shot and especially the volleys. Look at his matches at his first ever GS appearance, 2003 Wimbledon. He was volleying all over the place. "Objective" isn't realistic in this kind of Convo, as everyone will view the skills of a certain player differently

 

[nolefam_2024]

So much wrong with this post.

1. Tiny Carl wasn’t 18 when he won the USO Open or IW. He was 19.
2. RAFA won MC and Rome at 18, so again wrong.
3. RAFA’s Rogers Cup win included beating Agassi in the F who’s and infinitely better player than Ruud the guy Carl beat to win Miami.

Never have i mentioned Carlito won USOpen or IW at 18.
Never have I mentioned Rafa couldn't win clay masters at 18. He is Clay GOAT.
Agassi at 35 >> Ruud.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Never have i mentioned Carlito won USOpen or IW at 18.
Never have I mentioned Rafa couldn't win clay masters at 18. He is Clay GOAT.
Agassi at 35 >> Ruud.

You literally said it right here:

USOpen , IW, Miami, youngest ever Miami open winner at 18. Nadal was having nothing at 18. Carlito won a slam , and another hard court masters again in year 19. Second youngest ever IW champion, second youngest US Open winner. Do you realize how good this is.
If you think Alcaraz had weak competition, look at Nadal's draw at Rogers Cup. He had AS WEAK DRAWS AS Alcaraz. And Alcaraz won a slam on HC. Argument over.

 

[socallefty]

I guess many of you don’t understand what a complete tennis player means. Why are you guys arguing about achievements when it has nothing to do with Roddick’s statement? If you call someone at your club a complete tennis player, it doesn’t mean he won the club tournament many times. It means that he can play any style, can play well on any surface and has no big weaknesses that can be exploited.

 

[tlm]

Not true.

Hehe this is why the Rafito fans don’t like him.

Not true for me Rafa will always be my favorite player. But absolutely love watching this kid play, an actual young guy that is not a choker and quarterfinal queen like the rest of these young guys. Carlos is definitely the most exciting player to watch and seems like a nice kid. He is definitely my second favorite player and it will be exciting seeing how good he will be.

 

[Razer]

I guess many of you don’t understand what a complete tennis player means. Why are you guys arguing about achievements when it has nothing to do with Roddick’s statement? If you call someone at your club a complete tennis player, it doesn’t mean he won the club tournament many times. It means that he can play any style, can play well on any surface and has no big weaknesses that can be exploited.

There is nothing called a complete player or incomplete player, every player at the international level is complete in skills, otherwise they would not be successful.
If Rafa had 2 slams on his 20th birthday and Alcaraz has only 1 then it means Rafa was a better player, that is it.

 

[Rattie]

Not true for me Rafa will always be my favorite player. But absolutely love watching this kid play, an actual young guy that is not a choker and quarterfinal queen like the rest of these young guys. Carlos is definitely the most exciting player to watch and seems like a nice kid. He is definitely my second favorite player and it will be exciting seeing how good he will be.

I’ll second all of that

 

[MichaelNadal]

Just addressing the the correct title count for RAFA at the same stage. I mean it’s like I said, his 05 campaign is still better than Tiny Carl’s 2022-present 2023 campaign(s). Tiny is going to have to win another schlem and 2 more MS1000s just to equal the big title count. That and RAFA is ahead in the overall title count as a teenager 16-9.

Tiny Carl was YE#1 sure, but 2022 is by far a weaker year than 05. Flip the scenarios and 05 RAFA finishes YE#1, whereas 2022 Tiny Carl is all but guaranteed to go schlemless. Now I do think he has a more “complete” all around game. But the things that RAFA was better at outweighs Tiny’s advantages and I think the title disparity beats that out.

Precisely.

I'm not arguing that Alcaraz is better than 05 Nadal. But I don't think there is much difference in their accomplishments at a similar age. Personally I would say that Carlos reaching number 1 (and YE1) is at least equal to Nadal's greater tourney wins.

It's ok to be wrong

 

[mike danny]

What constitute as weak draw for you? Alcaraz humiliated Medvedev who is actual good hard court player with all the big titles except AO and IW on hard courts. He has been number 1 in the world. Made many slam finals. How do you compare that to Ljubicic?

That doesn't mean Ljubicic couldn't have been in better form though in that match or tournament.

Ljubicic indoors was definitely a tougher opponent than Medvedev on the IW courts.

 

[mike danny]

That's why I only compare accomplishments. Once we go down the "who was playing better" route we all have different opinions.

Carlos with the amount of points he acquired in 2022 would not have been number 1 in 2005. This is also an objective number.

 

[NatF]

This thread is full of garbage arguments and statements from both sides lol.

 

[GabeT]

Carlos with the amount of points he acquired in 2022 would not have been number 1 in 2005. This is also an objective number.

And? Being number 1 means you have more points than anyone else.

 

[GabeT]

It's ok to be wrong

I am only talking about accomplishments, not level of play or competition faced. And Nadal has a few masters over Carlos at rhe same age while Carlos has #1 ranking and YE1. I suspect most pros would take the YE1 over 2-3 masters

 

[Deleted member 629564]

The only complete package in tennis is Roger Federer. Period.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

I am only talking about accomplishments, not level of play or competition faced. And Nadal has a few masters over Carlos at rhe same age while Carlos has #1 ranking and YE1. I suspect most pros would take the YE1 over 2-3 masters

that's an illusory achievement, in other words, at the start of that moment when compared with nadal, it can't be an argument coz it simply doesn't exist in this case, in other words we can only compare anything but ye1 stuff in this comparison

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal the clay bully ofcourse has more accolades over Carlito.

Every non Nadal fans argument is always if we took the clay out.

Same was true for Federer fans
Same was true for Djokovic fans
Same will be true for Alcaraz fans

If every fandom has same argument, maybe your career is too heavily skewed on clay. Isn't it.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I wonder if Alcaraz will ever win 10 Slams, because Rune is already better than Alcaraz on hardcourt, and Rune is improving on clay too so will eventually rule clay too.
Rune will win between 10 and 25 Slams, so not sure if Alcaraz will win much, plus Alcaraz is injury-prone, and most injury-prone players don't last long, unlike Nadal the ultimate warrior.

I’m a massive Rune fan, but I would still have Alcaraz ahead on hardcourt.

Do you think if they were to play a Bo5 tomorrow on slow/medium hardcourt Rune would win?

 

[Subway Tennis]

That doesn't mean Ljubicic couldn't have been in better form though in that match or tournament.

Ljubicic indoors was definitely a tougher opponent than Medvedev on the IW courts.

What is the reason for Ljubicic becoming as underrated on here as he has since retiring?

The only thing I can think of is his underachieving big title count, but many of TTW’s favourite players are guys who didn’t win as many big titles as they should have.

It’s very unusual to me. He had a big sledgehammer game and he was quite unique in modern terms playing big man tennis with that single hander.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal the clay bully ofcourse has more accolades over Carlito.

Every non Nadal fans argument is always if we took the clay out.

Same was true for Federer fans
Same was true for Djokovic fans
Same will be true for Alcaraz fans

If every fandom has same argument, maybe your career is too heavily skewed on clay. Isn't it.

Bully these 4 US Opens

 

[mike danny]

What is the reason for Ljubicic becoming as underrated on here as he has since retiring?

The only thing I can think of is his underachieving big title count, but many of TTW’s favourite players are guys who didn’t win as many big titles as they should have.

It’s very unusual to me. He had a big sledgehammer game and he was quite unique in modern terms playing big man tennis with that single hander.

Well, Ljubicic in fairness was very weak at slam level for some reason, that's a major justification for people not looking fondly at him.

But the guy could still play well and indoors he was a big threat. Even gave Fed some tough matches every once in a while and Fed needed deciding set tiebreaks in 2005 to beat him in Shanghai and Rotterdam.

Some people just focus too much on achievements and completely neglect the level of play on display.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Well, Ljubicic in fairness was very weak at slam level for some reason, that's a major justification for people not looking fondly at him.

But the guy could still play well and indoors he was a big threat. Even gave Fed some tough matches every once in a while and Fed needed deciding set tiebreaks in 2005 to beat him in Shanghai and Rotterdam.

Some people just focus too much on achievements and completely neglect the level of play on display.

Not to mention a good portion of the board were like 2 years old in 05

 

[TheNachoMan]

Not to mention a good portion of the board were like 2 years old in 05

Ok, grandpa. lol

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ok, grandpa. lol

That’s me

 

[SonnyT]

Does Carlos have the serve and net game to be a S&Ver?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Interesting discussion. Rafa's year when he turned 19 in '05 was ridiculous--11 titles, 4 MS 1000 (2 on HC in Canada and an epic 5-setter indoors in Madrid), and was 2 points away from another MS title in Miami vs Fed. Also dethroned Coria as the "king of clay" with two terrific wins in MC and Rome. Oh and won the French Open. And was doing so against tougher competition than Carlos is (not his fault at all). Also, Becker was a 2-time Wimbledon champ by 19, in a SUPER TOUGH era

Again, all true. Nadal, Becker, Borg and Wilander all had superior achievements at 19. But none were as complete players. Becker was close, but did not have the drop shot/lob combo.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

In terms of talent yea I don’t think he’s much better if at all than Sinner or Rune. He just keeps his head together better. Less choking as of now. He’s not necessarily a better talent. In fact I think sinner has way more upside than alcaraz just due to his length and power

How does Sinner have a better upside, being older and way more limited as far as pure skills go? Carlos is better than the two of them at everything except for serve and maybe backhand, but even there the gap is really close right now. His backhand has been rock solid this season and he can rip it too, and his serve on clay and hard court is already a weapon. But most importantly he has the best forehand -which is far and away the most important groundstroke- of the lot and more variety, as well as the best defensive game.

Sinner matches up well with him just like Davydenko matched up well with Nadal, but that's about it. There is a reason why Sinner hasn't won anything over the 500 level and Alcaraz is already at one major and three M1000, and now in another final, all while being two years younger than Jannik. As of now it is what it is. He's clearly ahead of both Sinner and Rune.

 

[Mustard]

What constitute as weak draw for you? Alcaraz humiliated Medvedev who is actual good hard court player with all the big titles except AO and IW on hard courts. He has been number 1 in the world. Made many slam finals. How do you compare that to Ljubicic?

Nadal beat Federer in Dubai, in 2006, while age 19. Rather harder than beating Medvedev, methinks.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal beat Federer in Dubai, in 2006, while age 19. Rather harder than beating Medvedev, methinks.

Even Ljubicic indoors is a tougher challenge than Med on IW courts.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Nadal the clay bully ofcourse has more accolades over Carlito.

Every non Nadal fans argument is always if we took the clay out.

Same was true for Federer fans
Same was true for Djokovic fans
Same will be true for Alcaraz fans

If every fandom has same argument, maybe your career is too heavily skewed on clay. Isn't it.

Funny how Nadal is chided for having a title count "heavily skewed on clay"...but Roger, NoVaxx, etc aren't chided for having title counts "heavily skewed on Hardcourts". Who decided that clay is less of a surface than Hardcourts?? Or is it just something NoVaxx fans have made up over the last 10-12 years?? Makes no sense to the rest of us

 

[Mustard]

Funny how Nadal is chided for having a title count "heavily skewed on clay"...but Roger, NoVaxx, etc aren't chided for having title counts "heavily skewed on Hardcourts". Who decided that clay is less of a surface than Hardcourts?? Or is it just something NoVaxx fans have made up over the last 10-12 years?? Makes no sense to the rest of us

It was used by some Federer fans back in the noughties too. "Take out clay" etc.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Nadal beat Federer in Dubai, in 2006, while age 19. Rather harder than beating Medvedev, methinks.

That's one of their most underrated matches of their rivalry. Also significant b/c 2006 is considered Fed's "magnum opus" year, yet Nadal beat him 4 times that year...and on Hardcourts

Don't remember what Fed's ridiculous win streak on HCs was at that time...but it was no small feat for Rafa to beat Fed on HCs in Dubai (where Fed had won the previous 3 years)

 

[Mustard]

That's one of their most underrated matches of their rivalry. Also significant b/c 2006 is considered Fed's "magnum opus" year, yet Nadal beat him 4 times that year...and on Hardcourts

Don't remember what Fed's ridiculous win streak on HCs was at that time...but it was no small feat for Rafa to beat Fed on HCs in Dubai (where Fed had won the previous 3 years)

I believe it was 56 wins in a row for Federer on hardcourt going into the 2006 Dubai final, with his previous loss on hardcourt being in the 2005 Australian Open semi final to Safin. The 2006 Dubai final was basically the equivalent of Ali beating Foreman, except the winner here was a youngster rather than an older veteran. Basically, Federer dominated most of the match with ultra-aggressive attacking play, with Nadal clinging on, and then Nadal pounced at key moments to win the second and third sets, and win the match.

Federer lost 4 times in 2005 (1 of them to Nadal) and lost 5 times in 2006 (4 of them to Nadal).

 

[mike danny]

Funny how Nadal is chided for having a title count "heavily skewed on clay"...but Roger, NoVaxx, etc aren't chided for having title counts "heavily skewed on Hardcourts". Who decided that clay is less of a surface than Hardcourts?? Or is it just something NoVaxx fans have made up over the last 10-12 years?? Makes no sense to the rest of us

HC is more prevalent so of course you're gonna have more titles.

 

[StefanosWillSaveTheWorld]

No s**t, Andy. This isnt even a debate...

I might argue that carlos is a more complete player than nadal is at age 35... Hard to imagine a better career than rafa. But as far as the tools they have at their disposal, Carlos has more in my opinion.

 

[xFedal]

Carlos is indeed the real deal, but nothing I've seen from him has yet to touch Pistol's '90 USO masterclass:

No wonder Budge tapped the 19-year-old kid to become the next guy to win THE Grand Slam. Of course that didn't quite come true cuz mah boy didn't give a crap about pu$$y tennis on dirt.

But not even Pete was as fully developed as Boris at age 17:

These two are the crème de la crème among OE prodigies. Carlos can hash it out with his countryman Bull (and Borg) for the bronze.

Did u just put Boris and Pete over Alcaraz overlooking BORG who was the best teen Period! Most titles and match wins . Nobody is even close to what Borg did . Superior to PEte and BorIs .

 

[Mark Anderson]

Carlos is indeed the real deal, but nothing I've seen from him has yet to touch Pistol's '90 USO masterclass:

No wonder Budge tapped the 19-year-old kid to become the next guy to win THE Grand Slam. Of course that didn't quite come true cuz mah boy didn't give a crap about pu$$y tennis on dirt.

But not even Pete was as fully developed as Boris at age 17:

These two are the crème de la crème among OE prodigies. Carlos can hash it out with his countryman Bull (and Borg) for the bronze.

Yes, tennis on dirt is too much like Chess. A mental game. Checkers is for you.

 

[Subway Tennis]

How does Sinner have a better upside, being older and way more limited as far as pure skills go? Carlos is better than the two of them at everything except for serve and maybe backhand, but even there the gap is really close right now. His backhand has been rock solid this season and he can rip it too, and his serve on clay and hard court is already a weapon. But most importantly he has the best forehand -which is far and away the most important groundstroke- of the lot and more variety, as well as the best defensive game.

Sinner matches up well with him just like Davydenko matched up well with Nadal, but that's about it. There is a reason why Sinner hasn't won anything over the 500 level and Alcaraz is already at one major and three M1000, and now in another final, all while being two years younger than Jannik. As of now it is what it is. He's clearly ahead of both Sinner and Rune.

If you had to predict final individual “big title” counts each for Alcaraz, Sinner, and Rune, what would your prediction be?

I’m an admitted fan of Korda, Rune and Sinner (honestly I probably like Sinner as much as Alcaraz and possibly like Korda the most of all four) but I have to concede that these guys are behind Alcaraz at the moment. I hope they catch up, but there are no guarantees.

The scary thing about Alcaraz imo is not just that he has a very complete game, but that he is so confident to use the full spectrum of his game and execute in big moments at such a young age.

That stands out to me, because that was something that Federer struggled with early. He had such an arsenal of variety, and it took a while for him to “put it all together”.

 

[kevaninho]

I guess many of you don’t understand what a complete tennis player means. Why are you guys arguing about achievements when it has nothing to do with Roddick’s statement? If you call someone at your club a complete tennis player, it doesn’t mean he won the club tournament many times. It means that he can play any style, can play well on any surface and has no big weaknesses that can be exploited.

You believe that he can be a threat on grass too?

 

[socallefty]

You believe that he can be a threat on grass too?

Yes. Probably has to learn how to move better on it, but he seems to be a quick study. Has too many offensive weapons including slice, net game etc. to not be a threat relatively soon.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I guess many of you don’t understand what a complete tennis player means. Why are you guys arguing about achievements when it has nothing to do with Roddick's statement.

This has been explained ad nauseam in this thread, they're simply not equipped to understand. It's as fruitless as trying to potty train a 2 month old.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Interesting to hear who Djokovic thinks is the most complete young player, he addressed this last November:

 

[a10best]

i think its pretty obvious to anyone that has watched and played enough tennis

Roddick won 1 slam and made two other finals against Fed which he should have won imo.
Have any men's multi-slam winners made similar comments about Carlos being the most complete 19yr old?
They won't go that far.
Becker won 4 slams by the time he reached 19 years old. Wimbledon & USO.
Wilander won 2 slams by the time he was 19. French and Australian.
Roddick is just a media hyping commentator jumping on a wagon.
Carlitos barely got his 1 slam; taking 3-straight 5 setters and then a 4-set final against a fake#2 where he almost lost the 3rd set.

What does being complete have to do with winning slams? is that what a player wants in their tennis history books or winning WTF, Masters titles and slam championships?
From what I see the past year he could be injury plagued like Delpo and not fulfill expectations.

 

[BeatlesFan]

What does being complete have to do with winning slams?

When did Roddick make that analogy? He didn't.

Also - truly hilarious minimizing Roddick's comments since he wasn't a "multi slam" winner. Never mind he was YE #1, won the USO and won 33 career tournaments. Just a random POS mug apparently.

 

[abmk]

Roddick won 1 slam and made two other finals against Fed which he should have won imo.
Have any men's multi-slam winners made similar comments about Carlos being the most complete 19yr old?
They won't go that far.
Becker won 4 slams by the time he reached 19 years old. Wimbledon & USO.
Wilander won 2 slams by the time he was 19. French and Australian.
Roddick is just a media hyping commentator jumping on a wagon.
Carlitos barely got his 1 slam; taking 3-straight 5 setters and then a 4-set final against a fake#2 where he almost lost the 3rd set.

What does being complete have to do with winning slams? is that what a player wants in their tennis history books or winning WTF, Masters titles and slam championships?
From what I see the past year he could be injury plagued like Delpo and not fulfill expectations.

erm, no.

 

[Slicehand]

Roddick won 1 slam and made two other finals against Fed which he should have won imo.
Have any men's multi-slam winners made similar comments about Carlos being the most complete 19yr old?
They won't go that far.
Becker won 4 slams by the time he reached 19 years old. Wimbledon & USO.
Wilander won 2 slams by the time he was 19. French and Australian.
Roddick is just a media hyping commentator jumping on a wagon.
Carlitos barely got his 1 slam; taking 3-straight 5 setters and then a 4-set final against a fake#2 where he almost lost the 3rd set.

What does being complete have to do with winning slams? is that what a player wants in their tennis history books or winning WTF, Masters titles and slam championships?
From what I see the past year he could be injury plagued like Delpo and not fulfill expectations.

ok...

 

[mattennis]

Roddick won 1 slam and made two other finals against Fed which he should have won imo.
Have any men's multi-slam winners made similar comments about Carlos being the most complete 19yr old?
They won't go that far.
Becker won 4 slams by the time he reached 19 years old. Wimbledon & USO.
Wilander won 2 slams by the time he was 19. French and Australian.
Roddick is just a media hyping commentator jumping on a wagon.
Carlitos barely got his 1 slam; taking 3-straight 5 setters and then a 4-set final against a fake#2 where he almost lost the 3rd set.

What does being complete have to do with winning slams? is that what a player wants in their tennis history books or winning WTF, Masters titles and slam championships?
From what I see the past year he could be injury plagued like Delpo and not fulfill expectations.

A lot of factual errors in your comment

 

[a10best]

erm, no.

Becker. just divide 4 by 2. 2slam win in his teens > Carlitos.