Wilander - "Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer and could be the second most important player in history"

[NoleFam]

Tennis was actually at its peak popularity in the 70s. In the US tennis hit its peak in the early-to-mid 70s. Borg/McEnroe didn't make tennis mainstream. Quite the opposite, they came in at the tail end of tennis's peak.

I don't know about and would have to disagree based on data from that era, even though that was before my time.

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:

1. 1980, John McEnroe d. Bjorn Borg, 11.0
2. 1982, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.9
3. 1983, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.5

Tennis Television Ratings Tumble

Someone order up a Roger-Rafa and Sharapova-Venus final. CBS needs it!I went through CBS Media Guide last night, and there are three pages dedicated to the ratings of men’s and women’s …

observer.com

 

[SonnyT]

Yes, tennis has been replaced by golf. Every weekend, there's at least one golf tournament on free TV, in USA. Now only RG is shown on free TV, a few hours on the last Friday and weekend.

 

[Third Serve]

Federer is a poor man’s Alcaraz with a better serve.

 

[CyBorg]

I don't know about and would have to disagree based on data from that era, even though that was before my time.

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:

Tennis Television Ratings Tumble

Someone order up a Roger-Rafa and Sharapova-Venus final. CBS needs it!I went through CBS Media Guide last night, and there are three pages dedicated to the ratings of men’s and women’s …

observer.com

This data doesn't disprove my point. The tennis boom was in the 1970s and the decline began in the early 80s.

In the mid 70s about 35 million Americans played tennis. It's about half that number now.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Tennis was actually at its peak popularity in the 70s. In the US tennis hit its peak in the early-to-mid 70s. Borg/McEnroe didn't make tennis mainstream. Quite the opposite, they came in at the tail end of tennis's peak.

Borg and McEnroe did build on / push tennis into the kind of stratosphere of popularity associated with that "Tennis Boom" period of history. Aside from their deluge of media coverage of the era, they were seen in the company of some of history's more notable personalities, such as Muhammad Ali, Elton John, et al.:

While tennis was no stranger to seeing famous people watching from the stands, for the above players to be in the company of the biggest sports star of the 20th century (arguably) and a huge, international music star right at the point when tennis was in the process of divorcing itself from the lifeless country club image/culture, was significant, and certainly evidence of just how big the two players were on stages other than the court.

 

[jackson vile]

Federer who? He’s on his way to fourth or fifth at best. Don’t get me wrong as we all know he has beautiful tennis, but he doesn’t have the numbers and we all know he vultured all those slams before Novak and Nadal exposed him as they peaked.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Federer who? He’s on his way to fourth or fifth at best. Don’t get me wrong as we all know he has beautiful tennis, but he doesn’t have the numbers and we all know he vultured all those slams before Novak and Nadal exposed him as they peaked.

Yes, but nobody cares about Djokovic anyway. Borg is still an icon because he had x-factor. Roger has always had it. Djokovic just doesn't. When Djokovic retires he'll be a celebrity in Serbia and not much anywhere else.

 

[jackson vile]

Yes, but nobody cares about Djokovic anyway. Borg is still an icon because he had x-factor. Roger has always had it. Djokovic just doesn't. When Djokovic retires he'll be a celebrity in Serbia and not much anywhere else.

Again, Federer is talented and we love him for that, but when it comes to records/history he’s a non-point just like Borg, Rios, Safin, etc

In competition we fight for records and our targets are those that own those records.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Again, Federer is talented and we love him for that, but when it comes to records/history he’s a non-point just like Borg, Rios, Safin, etc

In competition we fight for records and our targets are those that own those records.

But that’s not the point of this thread!

 

[hoodjem]

Wilander the idiot.

I don’t know who is worse at over-hyping: Wilander or McEnroe?

 

[darthrafa]

when the socalled goat said he has not shared the same level of love, is it necessary to debate who is the icon of tennis?

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Yeah, I'm sure no one was intimidated by a supremely talented player who could do anything better than everyone else on the court.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Yes, but nobody cares about Djokovic anyway. Borg is still an icon because he had x-factor. Roger has always had it. Djokovic just doesn't. When Djokovic retires he'll be a celebrity in Serbia and not much anywhere else.

Djokovic will be like Court when he has been reitred for a few years. About half of the important records but nobody considers him best ever, or many not even top 3 all time. And even more importantly being someone nobody loves and few even particularly like, and few remininisce over at all.

 

[scotus]

Djokovic will be like Court when he has been reitred for a few years. About half of the important records but nobody considers him best ever, or many not even top 3 all time. And even more importantly being someone nobody loves and few even particularly like, and few remininisce over at all.

Djokovic is, at least for the next 7-8 years, the GOAT.

 

[martinezownsclay]

when the socalled goat said he has not shared the same level of love, is it necessary to debate who is the icon of tennis?

Exactly. In terms of who was more important to the sport (not a GOAT ranking list) Borg and probably McEnroe would be above Djokovic. Federer is hands down #1.

 

[FeroBango]

Carlos sure has the streets no matter the online bots of the other player may want one to think.

Leave the RG crowd alone, he's the modern face of local tennis coaching in random rural South Indian Tennis places (which I've seen). The charisma he has cannot be taught.

 

[TMF]

Djokovic is, at least for the next 7-8 years, the GOAT.

He's in GOAT discussion, but he's not even in top 5 most important tennis player, certainly will never be the phenomenon that Federer had become.

 

[TMF]

Exactly. In terms of who was more important to the sport (not a GOAT ranking list) Borg and probably McEnroe would be above Djokovic. Federer is hands down #1.

Laver is also above Djokovic

 

[martinezownsclay]

Laver is also above Djokovic

Yes, Nadal as well, Sampras. I did not list everyone. Gonzales, Tilden, arguably Agassi and Connors, some others. I just mentioned Borg and McEnroe to show how players with considerably less success achievements wise are still more impactful to the sport.

Borg needed security when he played, he was so popular, and he was scared of being out in public at times due to his extreme popularity. Djokovic will never have that kind of following. And his game did not revolutionize or change the sport in anyway, despite his immense success, and being a GOAT contender.

 

[socallefty]

Borg was the face of the game when I was a kid and tennis reached its peak popularity in the Western world when it seemed like everyone aspired to either play or have their kids learn tennis. Federer was the superstar when tennis became a global sport in this century and made it more popular in many new regions, but its popularity in the Western world never went back to the peak of the 70s/80s. Alcaraz is the current poster child and hopefully keeps tennis popular everywhere while it is under greater competition from other racquet sports.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Borg was the face of the game when I was a kid and tennis reached its peak popularity in the Western world where it seemed like everyone aspired to either play or have their kids learn tennis. Federer was the superstar when tennis became a global sport in this century and made it more popular in many new regions, but its popularity in the Western world never went back to the peak of the 70s/80s. Alcaraz is the current poster child and hopefully keeps tennis popular everywhere while it is under greater competition from other racquet sports.

Agreed on all of that. And that is what is meant that all those players are more important as far as their impact on tennis than Djokovic is, even if in an all time ranking only Federer rivals him right now of those 3.

 

[scotus]

He's in GOAT discussion, but he's not even in top 5 most important tennis player, certainly will never be the phenomenon that Federer had become.

Correction: Novak is the GOAT.

 

[Fedforever]

Borg was the face of the game when I was a kid and tennis reached its peak popularity in the Western world when it seemed like everyone aspired to either play or have their kids learn tennis. Federer was the superstar when tennis became a global sport in this century and made it more popular in many new regions, but its popularity in the Western world never went back to the peak of the 70s/80s. Alcaraz is the current poster child and hopefully keeps tennis popular everywhere while it is under greater competition from other racquet sports.

I remember ar Wimbledon time my family chatting with the neighbours about whether we preferred Borg or Connors.

Can't imagine that sort of conversation now - I'd lay good odds most of my work colleagues barely know who Alcaraz is.

 

[TMF]

Correction: Novak is the GOAT.

INCORRECT: There's no single answer for a GOAT. The discussion and debate will never end.

 

[scotus]

INCORRECT: There's no single answer for a GOAT. The discussion and debate will never end.

Sorry, the greatest on paper is the greatest in fact.

24 > 22 > 20

Sure, someone might come along and break the record in the future, but it is incredibly disingenuous to say that Djokovic is only “in GOAT discussion.”

We are not voting for the most popular player. Djokovic is the GOAT.

 

[SonnyT]

In football, Tom Brady was regarded as the best quarterback ever because of his mental fortitude, as well as his ability to throw the football. In basketball, MJ was regarded as the best basketball player ever, because of his supreme mental game.

In tennis, Djokovic was regarded as the best player ever because of his supreme confidence. He saved double match points on three separate occasions. And the guy who had those occasions had to be the fall guy, historically! When you look at it that way, who was the hero, who was the fall guy!

And right now, the next generation also has a guy with supreme confidence, and he's the anointed successor!

 

[SonnyT]

I don't believe Federer was the most important player in history. It depends on which surface. On clay, Rafa was it!

 

[TennisGrandpA]

I don't believe Federer was the most important player in history. It depends on which surface. On clay, Rafa was it!

Which player you were rooting for when Fed was dominating 2003-2007 era or before Novak became Novak

 

[TMF]

Sorry, the greatest on paper is the greatest in fact.

24 > 22 > 20

Sure, someone might come along and break the record in the future, but it is incredibly disingenuous to say that Djokovic is only “in GOAT discussion.”

We are not voting for the most popular player. Djokovic is the GOAT.

Don't be silly.
Slams is never the be-all and end-all.
There's no universal metric that determines GOAT. Everyone fan base has his/her own list of criteria to evaluate the player's placement in ATG.
Plus, you can't compare stats between era. Nothing stays in a vacuum. Rules/structures, tournaments, interest, surfaces, court speed, styles, depth/strength of competition, etc.

 

[scotus]

Don't be silly.
Slams is never the be-all and end-all.
There's no universal metric that determines GOAT. Everyone fan base has his/her own list of criteria to evaluate the player's placement in ATG.
Plus, you can't compare stats between era. Nothing stays in a vacuum. Rules/structures, tournaments, interest, surfaces, court speed, styles, depth/strength of competition, etc.

Yes, slams are. When the slams are tied, then we can look at other stats.

You are just looking to undermine the objective basis of choosing the GOAT because your guy hardly owns any records anymore. Now that’s what is truly silly.

 

[TMF]

Yes, slams are. When the slams are tied, then we can look at other stats.

You are just looking to undermine the objective basis of choosing the GOAT because your guy hardly owns any records anymore. Now that’s what is truly silly.

No, you don't make the rules. Slams is only part of the criteria, but there are many other factors in evaluating the player's greatness. It's called the complete package.
Any biased fan(that's including you) will selectively chose the criteria to support your favorite male idol

 

[scotus]

No, you don't make the rules. Slams is only part of the criteria, but there are many other factors in evaluating the player's greatness. It's called the complete package.
Any biased fan(that's including you) will selectively chose the criteria to support your favorite male idol

Who said I made the rules?

I did not make grand slams the most prestigious titles in tennis.

Greatness when sport fans talk about GOAT is not about popularity contest. It is about who has accomplished the most on the court in terms of the most coveted titles.

If you want to put Federer’s name on it, look for a different title such as Most aesthetically pleasing, most awe-inspiring, most popular, etc, then you might have a case. But GOAT is about titles, first and foremost about slams.

 

[TMF]

Who said I made the rules?

I did not make grand slams the most prestigious titles in tennis.

Greatness when sport fans talk about GOAT is not about popularity contest. It is about who has accomplished the most on the court in terms of the most coveted titles.

If you want to put Federer’s name on it, look for a different title such as Most aesthetically pleasing, most awe-inspiring, most popular, etc, then you might have a case. But GOAT is about titles, first and foremost about slams.

Not only that numbers without context is meaningless, but greatness includes EVERYTHING on and off the court.

 

[scotus]

Not only that numbers without context is meaningless, but greatness includes EVERYTHING on and off the court.

It is tragic that some feel the need to disregard numbers and other objective evidence with contexts that they cook up to suit their agenda.

 

[Winners or Errors]

LOL at this thread. How many times is this going to be hashed out on TT? CHIE for the win, guarantees Djoker GOAT status beyond a doubt. ;-)

 

[SonnyT]

Which player you were rooting for when Fed was dominating 2003-2007 era or before Novak became Novak

Federer could only dominate the 00's, where there was only one superstar. As soon as Rafa toned his non-clay game into shape, Federer melted into the background! Keep in mind that, between '11 and Djokovic's injury in '16, Federer only managed one slam, '12 WB!

 

[kabrac]

Alcaraz still doesnt have the X factor as much as Federer did. But hes by far the most exciting player to watch since Fedal and it's not even close. Delpo was someone that I really enjoyed watching too (my God that FH and that languid movement) but he was never healthy for long enough periods unfortunately

What's really weird is that Delpo played right handed but it was his left wrist that caused him trouble.....What was he doing with that left hand wrist that caused so much trouble?

 

[kabrac]

I would say Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Ashe, are the reason so many of us, through grants and such, are the reason of so many public courts being built then, just like pickleball now.

Maybe someone is playing on one of those courts right now, with a plaque that says " built in 1976, 1983, 84' or the like. Definitely Federer and Nadal, and even Sampras/Agassi...Anyway just wanted to say I'm appreciative of the public hard courts/clay courts that were put there before I was born, and after, to be able to take up the game.

Federer is the biggest tennis star of this century and helped increase its popularity significantly globally.

That others also contributed to varying degrees (Nadal the 2nd most after Federer) doesn't change the above. never said federer was the only one.

As far as Wimbledon and UK is concerned, you do realise Wim 19 final also had 2 other big events at the same time? The cricket world cup final in England (with England in the final vs New Zealand) and some big F-1 event. else it'd be over Wim 23 final for sure. doesn't mean popularity of fed-djoko is lesser than djoko-alcaraz.

 

[TMF]

It is tragic that some feel the need to disregard numbers and other objective evidence with contexts that they cook up to suit their agenda.

You're free to agree on something with zero context behind the numbers. I take them with a grain of salt. People who are well-informed and arms with tennis knowledge have better discernment.

It's a shame that some feel his/her opinion has to be right and other opinions are wrong. Reeks with fanboyism.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Federer could only dominate the 00's, where there was only one superstar. As soon as Rafa toned his non-clay game into shape, Federer melted into the background! Keep in mind that, between '11 and Djokovic's injury in '16, Federer only managed one slam, '12 WB!

That’s what was supposed to happen.

 

[Mustard]

Wilander the idiot.

Show me another player who was better tactically.

 

[scotus]

You're free to agree on something with zero context behind the numbers. I take them with a grain of salt. People who are well-informed and arms with tennis knowledge have better discernment.

It's a shame that some feel his/her opinion has to be right and other opinions are wrong. Reeks with fanboyism.

Haha, that last word, look in the mirror!

What a class act.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Show me another player who was better tactically.

Connors

 

[Quaichang]

Wilander feels Alcaraz historically will be the second most impactful player of all time, after Federer.

Mats also said Fed’s ba**s shrank to a small size when playing Rafa.

 

[Hitman]

Mats also said Fed’s ba**s shrank to a small size when playing Rafa.

Mats likes to say things.

 

[mike danny]

Mats also said Fed’s ba**s shrank to a small size when playing Rafa.

To be fair, he wasn’t wrong

 

[Incognito]

To be fair, he wasn’t wrong

AO2017 and Wimbledon 2019

 

[Quaichang]

To be fair, he wasn’t wrong

I know but still hate this quote as a Fed fan.

 

[travlerajm]

He also serves pretty horrible because he’s so short. There’s no free points on his serve like there was feds. Carlos will never be on feds level. Only sinner has a shot at reaching Big 3 statusb. When the injuries start piling up and Carlos loses that explosiveness and speed it’s all downhill for Carlos. Like it was Hewitt. Abrupt and acute

But at least Carlos can jump higher than Fed (because he has to).

 

[Quaichang]

But at least Carlos can jump higher than Fed (because he has to).

Please don’t compare light weight Lleyton to Carlitos.