Who would've been the worst matchup for Alcaraz in their peak?

Who would've done the best against Alcaraz?

  • Peak Novak 2011-2015

    Votes: 22 20.0%

  • Peak Nadal 2008-2013

    Votes: 20 18.2%

  • Peak Roger 2004-2007

    Votes: 40 36.4%

  • Peak Pete

    Votes: 10 9.1%

  • Peak Agassi

    Votes: 6 5.5%

  • All of the above

    Votes: 12 10.9%
  • Total voters
    110
NoleFam said:
I disagree. The players that Federer struggled the most with were the ones with great defense but even more so with the ones who could turn that defense to offense.
Click to expand...
None like Nadal though. And Carlos would never exploit Fed's BH like Nadal did either. Djokovic also didn't.
 
Nadal is a nightmare matchup for Alcaraz. Nothing a generational athlete fears more than the one guy who is even bigger, faster and stronger than they are. Alcaraz is so entertaining, though, and the way he spoils for the fight would have been box office. Even the Alcaraz vs old Nadal matches are high drama.

I also think Sampras would have been a tough matchup for Alcaraz as he would have figured out a way to clutch out one break of serve every set, while holding his own serve easily.
 
Who played at a higher level?

1. Murray AO 13 SF or Alcaraz USO 22 QF
2. Federer AO 13 SF or Wawrinka USO 16 final
3. Alcaraz USO 22 QF or Federer USO 15 final
4. Roddick Wim 05 final or Roddick USO 08 QF
5. Djokovic USO 08 SF or Federer AO 11 SF
 
mike danny said:
Djokovic fans should just refrain from belittling the competition of other players.

Fed was 6-8 against Rafa in 2004-2007, so 50/50 more or less.
Click to expand...
2011-16 Djokovic had the toughest opposition in history. With Federer still in slam winning form, and Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka in prime form.
 
SonnyT said:
2011-16 Djokovic had the toughest opposition in history. With Federer still in slam winning form, and Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka in prime form.
Click to expand...
2004-2007 Federer had the toughest competition in history with Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic all in slam winning form. See how easy that was?
 
nachiket nolefam said:
But there has been very few times he has played these guys. I saw Carlos winning Wimbledon and having championship pts in Cincinnati despite not having great fast courts record. He is like a computer, who is able to adjust to conditions mid match. I am not assuming he will dominate Federer on fast courts. But he probably will have as much success as Djokovic vs fed on fast courts. On slow courts he might completely dominate Federer because Federer has issues with guys like Carlos.
Click to expand...
One guy. Federer has issues with one guy. Nadal.
 
mike danny said:
2004-2007 Federer had the toughest competition in history with Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic all in slam winning form. See how easy that was?
Click to expand...
If you took Fed out of 2004-2007, how many additional multi-major winners would there be in that time period?

It was a very deep pool of top end talent. Excluding Nadal, Murray, Agassi, Djokovic and co. Fed probably stopped 3 additional ATG level careers from developing in that period of four years.
 
Subway Tennis said:
If you took Fed out of 2004-2007, how many additional multi-major winners would there be in that time period?

It was a very deep pool of top end talent. Excluding Nadal, Murray, Agassi, Djokovic and co. Fed probably stopped 3 additional ATG level careers from developing in that period of four years.
Click to expand...
What's clear is that several players would have better careers without Federer playing at that level. I don't think it was a strong era, but I do think it's constantly underrated.
 
Mike Sams said:
Alcaraz would solve all 3 on all surfaces.
Djokovic looks scared and tense when he's on the court with Alcaraz.
Even in Cincy, Alcaraz had a mental lapse that cost him the second set while Djoker was playing his usual shenanigans.
In 2024, Alcaraz is going to take at least 3 of the 4 majors. Definitely taking RG and Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Health willing, 2024 I feel, will be when the remaining doubters realise what they have refused to see til now.

But I'm not gifting him 3 slams next year. 2, may be, but a lot should go well for 3, for even one slam is a great achievement for anybody.
 
upchuck said:
Federer's backhand explains why he has a losing H2H to Djokovic and Nadal. Alcaraz seems to be similar talent to them so why wouldn't he just pick on Fed's backhand until he wins?
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it will go for fed. His backhand is a real weakness at goat level
 
upchuck said:
Alcaraz seems to be similar talent to them so why wouldn't he just pick on Fed's backhand until he wins?
Click to expand...
Alcaraz is a great player already, but his approach to shot selection and his consistently is very different to Nadal at the same age.

At 18, Nadal could crack winners on the forehand, but he was just as happy to take a very disciplined approach to shot selection, and lock his forehand into a single play pattern to break an opponents wing down. He could land a heavy ball on a dime for 5 hours straight.

Maybe things will change but right now Alcaraz does not have the discipline or consistency to devote his fantastic forehand to breaking down one wing of an opponent in the same way. He can hit winners from anywhere in the court, but his consistency and discipline is different to what Nadal had even at a very young age.
 
mike danny said:
2004-2007 Federer had the toughest competition in history with Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic all in slam winning form. See how easy that was?
Click to expand...
Agassi 04-07 GS winning form LOLNow counts Novaks USO F O7 in that era .Can anyone tell to TTWs the most passive-aggressive fed fan that Federer success is not his
 
I personally disagree with the peak years shown in the poll option.

I would expand Federer's peak till 2008 and 2009, considering he was merely 26 and 27 in the aforementioned years. Maybe even past that period.

Novak's peak also expanded past 2015.

As for Nadal, his peak on hard expanded till the AO 2014 SF and on clay at least till RG 2017. In fact, Nadal peaked at RG 2017. Most dominant form he has ever shown at the tournament, I strongly believe.

P. D.: if you disagree, don't take it too seriously. "Peak" is mostly a subjective, made-up cagegory. While peak performance does objectively exist, the timeline of such period is almost entirely subjective and depends on which tennis observer you ask, as fans of diferent fanbases will rationalize the "peak years" more convenient for their favorite player. This means my post is also subjective following the previous reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
I personally disagree with the peak years shown in the poll option.

I would expand Federer's peak till 2008 and 2009, considering he was merely 26 and 27 in the aforementioned years. Maybe even past that period.

Novak's peak also expanded past 2015.

As for Nadal, his peak on hard expanded till the AO 2014 SF and on clay at least till RG 2017. In fact, Nadal peaked at RG 2017. Most dominant form he has ever shown at the tournament, I strongly believe.

P. D.: if you disagree, don't take it too seriously. "Peak" is mostly a aubjective, made-up cagegory. While peak performance does objectively exist, the timeline of such period is almost entirely subjective and depends on which tennis observer you ask, as fans of diferent fanbases will rationalize the "peak years" more convenient for their favorite player.
Click to expand...
Good to see you back.
 
upchuck said:
Federer's backhand explains why he has a losing H2H to Djokovic and Nadal. Alcaraz seems to be similar talent to them so why wouldn't he just pick on Fed's backhand until he wins?
Click to expand...
Because as we all know Nadal is a special kind of lefty and Alcaraz isn't even lefty to begin with.

Fed has a losing H2H to Djokovic because of age, not BH.
 
Pete. Doesn't allow him any rhythm, serves him off the court, rips forehands down the line, ball breaking smashes etc.
 
mike danny said:
Of course not. I’m sure Djokovic himself would tell you it was easy to beat Fed by just attacking his BH
Click to expand...
Easy is your word, not mine.

The fact is, for a player with Djokovic's strengths and lack of weaknesses, a strategic approach centred on attacking Fed's backhand gave him the upper hand in the rivalry once he started realising his potential. It's the biggest, clearest difference between the two...
 
upchuck said:
Easy is your word, not mine.

The fact is, for a player with Djokovic's strengths and lack of weaknesses, a strategic approach centred on attacking Fed's backhand gave him the upper hand in the rivalry once he started realising his potential. It's the biggest, clearest difference between the two...
Click to expand...
It was also critical to Nadal's success against Federer.
 
Peak Federer against peak Alcaraz would've been an exciting match up though I think Federer would've been annoyed with the way Carlos celebrates so much with fist pumps. He would've definitely humbled him.
 
upchuck said:
Easy is your word, not mine.

The fact is, for a player with Djokovic's strengths and lack of weaknesses, a strategic approach centred on attacking Fed's backhand gave him the upper hand in the rivalry once he started realising his potential. It's the biggest, clearest difference between the two...
Click to expand...
The classic “Fed didn’t decline, others just got better”. Bring some new material
 
mike danny said:
I take both Fed declining and Djokovic improving into account.
Click to expand...
What you must understand about Federer's backhand is that it wasn't a great weapon. His forehand was a great weapon capable of consistently sudden brilliance. Once Djokovic limited Fed's impact with his forehand by poking at his backhand, he was more or less in control of the match because he's so solid at everything. (He also understood the importance of going deep when he played to Fed's forehand side, often preventing Fed from really stepping in to the court to hit that shot). Federer had no similar tactical answer for Djokovic.
 
upchuck said:
What you must understand about Federer's backhand is that it wasn't a great weapon. His forehand was a great weapon capable of consistently sudden brilliance. Once Djokovic limited Fed's impact with his forehand by poking at his backhand, he was more or less in control of the match because he's so solid at everything. (He also understood the importance of going deep when he played to Fed's forehand side, often preventing Fed from really stepping in to the court to hit that shot). Federer had no similar tactical answer for Djokovic.
Click to expand...
What you must also understand is that over time the things that made Federer dangerous against Djokovic declined liked his FH, movement and BH slice. Federer losing these weapons played a far bigger role in his rivalry with Djokovic than just the backhand.

Of course going deep to Fed's FH side after his movement to that side had declined was a viable strategy and easier to execute.

There was no tactical answer against Djokovic to be had. Fed needed his younger legs back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
Players that would've hypothetically been match-up nightmares for players from another era
Replies
0
Views
201
clout
clout
Sport
  • Poll Poll
A plausible hypothetical: Alcaraz vs. Federer in 2021
Replies
4
Views
392
TennisXpert@2023
T
M
  • Poll Poll
2024 Alcaraz vs 2011 Djokovic, 2007 Federer and 2009 Nadal at the AO, but the Big Three start with a 6-1, 6-3, 5-2 lead
Replies
2
Views
333
itrium84
itrium84
M
  • Poll Poll
2003-2006 Federer vs 2023 Alcaraz at Wimbledon, but Alcaraz serves in every game - Who would win?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Thundergod
T
TripleATeam
  • Poll Poll
If Carlos Alcaraz was born a decade later, would he realistically achieve more than Timic or Pialta in the Big Seven era ?
Replies
1
Views
331
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
Back
Top