Tennis desperately needs Alcaraz/Rune/Sinner to beat Djokodal

Agree?

  • Yes tennis needs new ATGs beating Djokodal

    Votes: 46 57.5%

  • No, Big3s winning is best for tennis

    Votes: 15 18.8%

  • A bit of both

    Votes: 19 23.8%
  • Total voters
    80
MichelaDe

MichelaDe

Rookie
New ATGs have always had wins over past ATGs.

Connors beat Rosewall
Borg beat Connors
McEnroe beat Borg
Lendl beat McEnroe
Becker beat Lendl
Agassi beat Becker
Federer beat Agassi
Djokovic beat Federer

New possible ATGs Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner have zero wins at Slams over 35+ year old Big3s.

I'm a Djokovic fan so nothing makes me happier than him winning, but I also think "what am I gonna watch after he retires?". I don't want to watch tennis and always think "yeah but past ATGs were much better".

To give legitimacy to the next era tennis needs new ATGs like Alcaraz, Rune or Sinner to have at least a couple of convincing wins each over Djokovic and Nadal in Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Tennis needs them to specifically beat Djokodal too. Not just have the two of them fail to make the 2nd week and then have Alcaraz and company take the leftovers. They need to face Djokodal in the semis/finals and beat them. Only that way do more casual fans see these new guys and take an interest in them.
 
vex

vex

Legend
MichelaDe said:
New ATGs have always had wins over past ATGs.

Connors beat Rosewall
Borg beat Connors
McEnroe beat Borg
Lendl beat McEnroe
Becker beat Lendl
Agassi beat Becker
Federer beat Agassi
Djokovic beat Federer

New possible ATGs Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner have zero wins at Slams over Big3s.

I'm a Djokovic fan so nothing makes me happier than him winning, but I also think "what am I gonna watch after he retires?". I don't want to watch tennis and always think "yeah but past ATGs were much better".

To give legitimacy to the next era tennis needs new ATGs like Alcaraz, Rune or Sinner to have at least a couple of convincing wins each over Djokovic and Nadal in Grand Slams.
Click to expand...
Honestly tho…. There is basically no chance that Alc/Rune/Sinner will reach the level of Djokovic/Nadal. And I’m not talking career achieves, I’m talking objective level of play. Alcaraz just isn’t tall enough, Sinner isn’t athletic/consistent enough, Rune just isn’t that special… The next Djokovic/Nadal level player may not even be born yet.
 
S

slipgrip93

Professional
MichelaDe said:
New ATGs have always had wins over past ATGs.

Connors beat Rosewall
Borg beat Connors
McEnroe beat Borg
Lendl beat McEnroe
Becker beat Lendl
Agassi beat Becker
Federer beat Agassi
Djokovic beat Federer

New possible ATGs Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner have zero wins at Slams over 35+ year old Big3s.

I'm a Djokovic fan so nothing makes me happier than him winning, but I also think "what am I gonna watch after he retires?". I don't want to watch tennis and always think "yeah but past ATGs were much better".

To give legitimacy to the next era tennis needs new ATGs like Alcaraz, Rune or Sinner to have at least a couple of convincing wins each over Djokovic and Nadal in Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

Where's Sampras? (and Edberg?) He beat Lendl, McEnroe in his 1990 USO run. And Becker in his 1993 Wimbledon run.
 
daggerman

daggerman

Hall of Fame
vex said:
Honestly tho…. There is basically no chance that Alc/Rune/Sinner will reach the level of Djokovic/Nadal. And I’m not talking career achieves, I’m talking objective level of play. Alcaraz just isn’t tall enough, Sinner isn’t athletic/consistent enough, Rune just isn’t that special… The next Djokovic/Nadal level player may not even be born yet.
Click to expand...

In terms of objective level of play, I think both Rune and Alcaraz are ahead of Nadal and Djokovic at 19. Of course, discussions of "objective level of play" are rather subjective, but from what I've seen, they have more complete games than their predecessors at the same age: better transition games, better hands, more potent and precise groundstrokes, better serves, more tactical clarity, etc. It's almost as if they've benefited from growing up watching the Big 3.

We'll see how their games come along, though. I think Rune in particular has a decent chance to reach a higher level than Novak and Rafa. Alcaraz I'm less bullish on long-term (because I do agree he's probably a little too short).
 
G

GregN

Rookie
The same situation may very well have happened if the likes of Aggasi, Sampras etc had decided to extend their careers into their thirties. This situation is not peculiar to tennis alone, stars of many sports are continuing to play into their thirties as sports medicine has improved and the financial incentive is there as well. It's pretty obvious that fifteen to twenty years experience can overcome youth and inexperience. The top three have continued to evolve their respective games as well, constantly trying to improve.
 
socallefty

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
What is entertaining for me is for Nadal and Djokovic to keep winning and keep writing chapters in their GOAT rivalry. As long as they are playing the best tennis on tour, why would I care how old they are? I can do without watching chokefests like the 2020USO final with two other players playing.

Prize money is at an all time high and presumably tennis is doing fine globally.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 629564

Guest
Agree.
Djokodal must be stopped.
Someone should protect the goatness of Roger Federer.
 
T

Thedesertfox

Professional
Sinner will be a big threat at USO and SW19, and Alcaraz ( of healthy) may upset Djokovic at FO. However none of the will beat Rafa at RG cause it is next to impossible. Only single player to ever beat healthy Rafa was Söderling
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
C

ChrisRF

Legend
I don't know. I rather have a feeling that tennis is very much over (at least for a long while) at the moment when the last one of the Big 3 will hang up his racquet. Nobody I know in real life cares for the young players at all. And the Big 3 have set the bar so high that even the next player winning 10 Slams won't really make casual watchers excited again.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
ChrisRF said:
I don't know. I rather have a feeling that tennis is very much over (at least for a long while) at the moment when the last one of the Big 3 will hang up his racquet. Nobody I know in real life cares for the young players at all. And the Big 3 have set the bar so high that even the next player winning 10 Slams won't really make casual watchers excited again.
Click to expand...

Or the excitement could come, as it used to, from the tournament being open and the result not obvious. That's actually far more exciting than simply watching one of two people notch up another notch on their bedpost after each event. The Big Three era has actually significantly lowered the bar in terms of excitement.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
Thedesertfox said:
Sinner will be a big threat at USO and SW19, and Alcaraz ( of healthy) may upset Djokovic at FO. However none of the will beat Rafa at RG cause it is next to impossible. Only single player to ever beat healthy Rafa was Söderling
Click to expand...

Second sentence is very true, although a bit wordy: "next to" is a false qualifier. You'd have got it right if you said "None of them will beat Rafa at RG cause it is impossible."

Third sentence is absolute BS. Bull was not healthy at RG 2009. He withdrew from Wimbledon because of the severity of his RG injury. Plus he had the emotional injury of his parents' marital troubles. That "defeat" doesn't count morally any more than the others do! I do agree that Soderling played better than Djokovic did, and maybe Soderling could have won a set against healthy Bull, but Soderling is not superman and even he couldn't have actually pulled off the win!
 
tennis_error

tennis_error

Professional
helterskelter said:
Second sentence is very true, although a bit wordy: "next to" is a false qualifier. You'd have got it right if you said "None of them will beat Rafa at RG cause it is impossible."

Third sentence is absolute BS. Bull was not healthy at RG 2009. He withdrew from Wimbledon because of the severity of his RG injury. Plus he had the emotional injury of his parents' marital troubles. That "defeat" doesn't count morally any more than the others do! I do agree that Soderling played better than Djokovic did, and maybe Soderling could have won a set against healthy Bull, but Soderling is not superman and even he couldn't have actually pulled off the win!
Click to expand...
Healthy Nadal never loses theory confirmed... ;) (y)
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
tennis_error said:
Healthy Nadal never loses theory confirmed... ;) (y)
Click to expand...

I was going to comment that it's not a theory but a deep moral truth, but it is in fact the case that healthy Nadal has never existed and is a purely hypothetical concept, so it could be said that it's a theory that healthy Nadal never loses. We do know that merely seriously injured Nadal never loses; only life-threateningly injured Nadal does. I suppose it's possible that severely injured Nadal might actually be better than healthy Nadal - we have no way of knowing! But it doesn't seem very likely.
 
J

joshuayuan

Professional
Such a disrespect to Tiafoe, Paul, Norrie, de Minaur and McDonald.

We can't really lump Nadal with Djokovic nowadays.

Tennis needs a new ATG.

To be a new ATG, a player must use a heavier SW racquet. These new players use such a puny light racquets which is not good for easy power and they wear their body down and they can't create deep shots consistently.

Tennis racquet manufacturers must only produce pro stock racquets with heavy swing weight to encourage new players to play with authority.
 
Last edited:
C

ChrisRF

Legend
helterskelter said:
Or the excitement could come, as it used to, from the tournament being open and the result not obvious. That's actually far more exciting than simply watching one of two people notch up another notch on their bedpost after each event. The Big Three era has actually significantly lowered the bar in terms of excitement.
Click to expand...
Not really. There needs to be a bigger picture. Even for me as a big fan, but much more so for casual viewers. I get nobody to watch if even someone winning the tournament doesn't have a real meaning (like in WTA for many years). But when I tell people that history could be made again, then interest will rise a bit. Maybe a totally unexpected event like Emma Raducanu winning 20 consecutive sets to take a Slam as a qualifier is a slight exception, but nobody will care if the next #1 after the Big 3 will win 3 or 5 or even 10 Slams. And it's also quite irrelevant who it will be. I also sometimes have a feeling like casual watchers are incapable of remembering more than 3-5 names for a longer while. Or they remember the names, but even forget the basic attributes (like one-handed backhand or not).
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
ChrisRF said:
Not really. There needs to be a bigger picture. Even for me as a big fan, but much more so for casual viewers. I get nobody to watch if even someone winning the tournament doesn't have a real meaning (like in WTA for many years). But when I tell people that history could be made again, then interest will rise a bit. Maybe a totally unexpected event like Emma Raducanu winning 20 consecutive sets to take a Slam as a qualifier is a slight exception, but nobody will care if the next #1 after the Big 3 will win 3 or 5 or even 10 Slams. And it's also quite irrelevant who it will be. I also sometimes have a feeling like casual watchers are incapable of remembering more than 3-5 names for a longer while. Or they remember the names, but even forget the basic attributes (like one-handed backhand or not).
Click to expand...

Your own view is fine; the sweeping generalisation is too sweeping. Some people will care. I do agree that there needs to be a middle ground between the top-heavy big three era (which has been very boring) and the recent women's tour, where there has often been too much equality. If there are a handful of great players who win 6-10 slams, like in the 1980s, it will be a very exciting era. Incomparably more so than the big three era. Perhaps casual fans won't be so interested, but casual fans aren't that crucial to the sport compared to more serious fans. The big three era is good as an example of celebrity culture. It's not good as an example of genuinely exciting tennis. Goat races and "history being made" headlines aren't very exciting except on a very, very shallow level. Uncertainty over the outcome is far more exciting for me and at least some others. But to each their own!
 
Last edited:
jl809

jl809

Hall of Fame
It's all about the level of play from the field. I don't mind who wins the slams so long as they are beating players that would be competitive with the slam winners from actual quality years - I'll even settle for 2017-18 slam-winning levels, not 2012 or 2013. And this is the issue. I think both Nadal and Djokovic hit periods of play that were super respectable at RG 22 (QF and F) and Wimbledon 22 (F after set 1). But on the other side of the net were people like Ruud and Kyrgios mugging around from the baseline, and that gives these guys a really infuriatingly easy ride and makes them look godly out there

And yes, I agree that actually beating Djokodal is vitally important. I can't really take Alcaraz's USO 22 run seriously - aside from finding the Sinner match ridiculously entertaining - because my suspicion is that 2022/3 Djokovic (or 2020 Thiem, 2008-12 Tsonga, etc....) would have very pragmatically dismantled him in 4 with minimal fuss. I want to see him play Djokovic on HC ASAP
 
T

Thedesertfox

Professional
jl809 said:
It's all about the level of play from the field. I don't mind who wins the slams so long as they are beating players that would be competitive with the slam winners from actual quality years - I'll even settle for 2017-18 slam-winning levels, not 2012 or 2013. And this is the issue. I think both Nadal and Djokovic hit periods of play that were super respectable at RG 22 (QF and F) and Wimbledon 22 (F after set 1). But on the other side of the net were people like Ruud and Kyrgios mugging around from the baseline, and that gives these guys a really infuriatingly easy ride and makes them look godly out there

And yes, I agree that actually beating Djokodal is vitally important. I can't really take Alcaraz's USO 22 run seriously - aside from finding the Sinner match ridiculously entertaining - because my suspicion is that 2022/3 Djokovic (or 2020 Thiem, 2008-12 Tsonga, etc....) would have very pragmatically dismantled him in 4 with minimal fuss. I want to see him play Djokovic on HC ASAP
Click to expand...
Well maybe you are right. Djokovic looked suspicious in the first two sets at 2021 FO and in the first set of Wimby 2021. Nadal imho will not be a significant factor on grass/hc anymore, cause his body looks broken beyond fixing( surprised it had not happened like 10 years ago). Sinner and Alcaraz will be a forces to reckon with. The former on grass and HC and the latter at HC and clay imo.
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
It's too late against Nadal - he is beating beaten by Father Time and injuries now. Beating him anywhere outside of the French Open doesn't have the same meaning this year

Novak is still in good shape and playing top tier tennis for now, so he is the benchmark
 
Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar

Professional
MichelaDe said:
New ATGs have always had wins over past ATGs.

Connors beat Rosewall
Borg beat Connors
McEnroe beat Borg
Lendl beat McEnroe
Becker beat Lendl
Agassi beat Becker
Federer beat Agassi
Djokovic beat Federer

New possible ATGs Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner have zero wins at Slams over 35+ year old Big3s.

I'm a Djokovic fan so nothing makes me happier than him winning, but I also think "what am I gonna watch after he retires?". I don't want to watch tennis and always think "yeah but past ATGs were much better".

To give legitimacy to the next era tennis needs new ATGs like Alcaraz, Rune or Sinner to have at least a couple of convincing wins each over Djokovic and Nadal in Grand Slams.
Click to expand...
Desperately begging for someone to stop Nadal at RG since obviously djokofaker can't. Pathetic.
 
T

Thedesertfox

Professional
D.Nalby12 said:
We will see. He made breakthrough in 2022 OTOH last ATG made it in 2008. 14 years are too much. Next ATG should have are arrived during 2014-17 itself..
Click to expand...
How old was Novaxx when he made the breakthrough? 21?
Alcaraz was just 19 when he won USO (with a bit of luck)
 
Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar

Professional
MichelaDe said:
This thread is no about that.

Djokovic is rent free in your mind.
Click to expand...
This thread is about that. The timing says it all. You didn't open the thread before starting AO23. You open it now when clay season is about to start. You can change your avatar as many times as you wish but we know you here, ********.
 
MichelaDe

MichelaDe

Rookie
Thedesertfox said:
Sinner will be a big threat at USO and SW19, and Alcaraz ( of healthy) may upset Djokovic at FO. However none of the will beat Rafa at RG cause it is next to impossible. Only single player to ever beat healthy Rafa was Söderling
Click to expand...
No way. He was injured there too.

Healthy Rafa is undefeated. 100% of wins.
 
LaVie en Rose

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
daggerman said:
In terms of objective level of play, I think both Rune and Alcaraz are ahead of Nadal and Djokovic at 19. Of course, discussions of "objective level of play" are rather subjective, but from what I've seen, they have more complete games than their predecessors at the same age: better transition games, better hands, more potent and precise groundstrokes, better serves, more tactical clarity, etc. It's almost as if they've benefited from growing up watching the Big 3.

We'll see how their games come along, though. I think Rune in particular has a decent chance to reach a higher level than Novak and Rafa. Alcaraz I'm less bullish on long-term (because I do agree he's probably a little too short).
Click to expand...
Game evolving through time is natural process.
Yet,we didn't see Djokovic or Nadal (with, in relative terms, having less complete game as you hinted) when they were Runes age squandering 5 2 serving for the match in 5th set, leading 5 0 in TB ... Djokovic at his first Wimbledon ever, aged 18 reached 3th round coming from qualifications, at age 19 4th round losing only to solid experienced grass players, 20 SF. That's huge to techincally inferior game ( again in relative terms to new ATP hopes). Nadal took some time to develop his potential on HC but he was excellent on other natural surface -grass reaching F aged 20 . Huge dips in level of play came later in career as fully developed player 2012-2017
Alcaraz might follow Nadal path/or not , taking long/ish injury breaks (first one 3 months. already skipped Masters in the middle of his ascent on tour ) to focus on specific goals.We'll see if his body can take it. Seems to me, less naturally physically gifted than Nadal at his age.
But nothing of this necessarily means they will develop in the same way. To many unknown factors ahead.
As always we'll have to wait & see. In the meantime tennis fans can just enjoy the game without desperatelly trying to find xxz who can beat xxyz. Just my 2 cents
 
Rafa4LifeEver

Rafa4LifeEver

G.O.A.T.
TripleATeam said:
Tennis needs them to specifically beat Djokodal too. Not just have the two of them fail to make the 2nd week and then have Alcaraz and company take the leftovers. They need to face Djokodal in the semis/finals and beat them. Only that way do more casual fans see these new guys and take an interest in them.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Djokovic_is_the_best#1

Djokovic_is_the_best#1

Bionic Poster
For the tennis future we do. Don’t get much wrong what djokodal is doing is incredible and their dominance is amazing to watch. However, to create new stories of course it would be great for tennis if an alcaraz/Rune/Sinner took the big step and upset djokodal in a big major semi final or final. We will see but djokodal aren’t going to make it easy for them.

Even if djokodal don’t win another match they already the top 2 GOATs and just fighting for the top prize. It’s up to the younger players to do something and make a name for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dking68
  • Poll
Does Sinner have a shot at being an ATG?
Replies
43
Views
676
dking68
dking68
J
Tennis real problem
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
Crocodile
Crocodile
Spencer Gore
  • Poll
How Does This Year's French Open Field Compare?
Replies
20
Views
500
Sputnik Bulgorov
S
Sport
  • Poll
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
2 3
Replies
149
Views
3K
Holmes
Holmes
Razer
  • Poll
How many All Time Greats can say that they ruled their career span/era overall ?
Replies
44
Views
867
Razer
Razer
Top