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

[a10best]

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.

While I agree with Roddick what do you expect a guy who relied on his serve to win points far more than his groundies.
Kyrios, Isner, and Karlovic will say the same thing.
If this was said by Federer, Agassi or Djokovic it carries more weight.

 

[jackson vile]

Writing a lot of checks here, hope they don’t bounce

 

[Third Serve]

I find hyperboles discrediting of past greats in general. To Roddick’s he says ‘that I have seen’ so one might assume he didn’t see some of the past legends.

He saw Nadal plenty. As good as Alcaraz is now, he doesn’t touch young Nadal.

 

[Slicehand]

While I agree with Roddick what do you expect a guy who relied on his serve to win points far more than his groundies.
Kyrios, Isner, and Karlovic will say the same thing.
If this was said by Federer, Agassi or Djokovic it carries more weight.

Thats ********, he played all those guys, he knows what a complete player is, you just talking trash, a pro player gave his opinion, and his opinion is a million times more valid than yours, move on

 

[a10best]

A lot of factual errors in your comment

Wilander born Aug, 64, - 2 Aussies 83, 84 and 1 FO 82'.
So 3 slams before age 20. How's that?
.

 

[TheNachoMan]

He saw Nadal plenty. As good as Alcaraz is now, he doesn’t touch young Nadal.

To say he doesn’t touch young Nadal is unfair, they are very close and the numbers show that. Nadal is slightly better.

 

[Azure]

He saw Nadal plenty. As good as Alcaraz is now, he doesn’t touch young Nadal.

Outside of clay I think they are pretty even (at this age).

 

[a10best]

Thats ********, he played all those guys, he knows what a complete player is, you just talking trash, a pro player gave his opinion, and his opinion is a million times more valid than yours, move on

I said his opinion isn't worth as much as the big 4 or multi-slam winners. How is that not true?
Roddick's tennis comments are always worth more than mine since he was No. 1 and won it all. Probably his stock investments too where I'm so-so.
I believe Courier said the same thing about Carlos months earlier and he won 4 slams.

Being a complete player and winning multiple slams are two different things. Carlos shouldn't be a 1-slam wonder but his multiple injuries are a real concern. Nadal was durable as ***ck at that age.

 

[mattennis]

Wilander born Aug, 64, - 2 Aussies 83, 84 and 1 FO 82'.
So 3 slams before age 20. How's that?
.

He won 3, not 2 as you said.

Ups, no, you were right with Wilander, because the Australian Open was played in December at that time, so you were right that he won two Grand Slams at the time of his 20th birthday.

On the other hand, he won his fourth Grand Slam when he was 20 years old and 9 months, which is amazing!

 

[hoodjem]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.


Or, we could be prisoners of the moment and engage in much unfounded hyperbole--like we always do.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I said his opinion isn't worth as much as the big 4 or multi-slam winners. How is that not true?

Using this criterion, then let's all bow down and listen to Johan Kriek, who won two slams and is thus a "multi slam winner."

It's utterly absurd to interject this arbitrary condition.

 

[NapalmFist]

Roddick has some serious amnesia and recentcy bias. Nadal played his first match against Federer on hardcourt and won, when Federer was untouchable by the rest of the tour. He won 11 tournaments in 2015 alone (more than Alcaraz has won total) two of those were master 1000 hardcourt tournaments. Nadal made the Wimbledon finals every single year he played between 2006 and 2011, winning twice in a row (2009 he didn't play) and beating Djokovic and Federer along the way. The 3 losses he had there during this time were exclusively to Federer and Djokovic, 2 of greatest grass players all time and the 2 other GOATS. Tell me again Andy that Nadal was just good on clay when he was Alcaraz's age.

 

[Chanwan]

Roddick has some serious amnesia and recentcy bias. Nadal played his first match against Federer on hardcourt and won, when Federer was untouchable by the rest of the tour. He won 11 tournaments in 2015 alone (more than Alcaraz has won total) two of those were master 1000 hardcourt tournaments. Nadal made the Wimbledon finals every single year he played between 2006 and 2011, winning twice in a row (2009 he didn't play) and beating Djokovic and Federer along the way. The 3 losses he had there during this time were exclusively to Federer and Djokovic, 2 of greatest grass players all time and the 2 other GOATS. Tell me again Andy that Nadal was just good on clay when he was Alcaraz's age.

Like so many others in this thread, you misunderstand the meaning of the word complete.
Also, Rafa's 2006 W is comparable to Carlos' 2023, i.e. it doesn't factor in when speaking about 19 year olds

 

[NapalmFist]

Like so many others in this thread, you misunderstand the meaning of the word complete.
Also, Rafa's 2006 W is comparable to Carlos' 2023, i.e. it doesn't factor in when speaking about 19 year olds

Carlos is no longer 19 he is 20. This year at Wimbledon he will be older than Rafa was at 2006 Wimbledon final.

 

[Chanwan]

Carlos is no longer 19 he is 20. This year at Wimbledon he will be older than Rafa was at 2006 Wimbledon final.

You seriously don't get it? Roddick said this days before Carlos turned 20

"I'm not a victim of hyperbole, but I think he's the most complete 19 year old male tennis player that I've ever seen"

What Rafa did at 20 (and beyond) has absolutely nothing to do with his statement

And he's speaking about Alcaraz' game, not results

 

[BeatlesFan]

You seriously don't get it?

It's beyond belief at this point. I can't wait for Nadal and Djokovic to retire to spare us from the unremitting fanaticism. So triggered by an innocuous comment from Roddick.

 

[a10best]

Using this criterion, then let's all bow down and listen to Johan Kriek, who won two slams and is thus a "multi slam winner."

It's utterly absurd to interject this arbitrary condition.

Well, I was referring to modern day tennis players from the mid-90s to present. Andy is modern day and only 40 years old.
And during Andy's playing days, there's many "complete" players that don't make the top 100 or top 500 for many reasons like injury, family issues, etc.
Claiming Carlos as the most complete 19 year old is subjective.

 

[Chanwan]

It's beyond belief at this point. I can't wait for Nadal and Djokovic to retire to spare us from the unremitting fanaticism. So triggered by an innocuous comment from Roddick.

I want to see a lot of Alca-Djoko matches and - hopefully - a few Alca-Rafa matches as well, before the injured golden bull pulls the plug.
But boy... the fanatics remind me while I'm in the habit of taking looooong breaks from this place.