Will Alcaraz surpass the peaks of Fedalovic?

[TheNachoMan]

Alcaraz likely won’t have a rival like the big 3 had. He’ll probably have an era like Serena had.

big 3 would have 40+ slams without each other.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

@Martin J, a bit of help here, please?

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

 

[mike danny]

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

I agree.

I also think it's partly a matter of timing on clay and grass as well. Unlucky to play in the same clay era as same-aged Nadal, while on grass he got more openings due to Federer himself declining from his best years.

 

[NatF]

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

Yeah Djokovic's style of hitting is just much more conducive to HC and grass. Dictating on clay is more about weight of shot, angles and winning the battle of court positioning by forcing your opponent back or out of position. Djokovic needs to go for lower percentage plays to do the same compared to more classic clay courters. His success on clay is due to his overall game being incredibly strong and well rounded rather than affinity or well suited gamestyle for clay.

 

[GrindAndVolley]

What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

Okay I agree that Djoko somewhat lacks the patience to endlessly hold onto the rally and neither does he posess the true "hit through the dirt" like Fed, Wawrinka or Nadal.
Still to me, point was that Djoko was not a very strong Clay player and I'd disagree with that.

On topic. I think Alcaraz both can hold onto the rally longer than Djoko can mentally (and remind Alcaraz is still young, still few years to get mentally tougher and smarter) and also Alcaraz is better able to "hit through the dirt".
But that's just the clay. He also hits a little flatter than Nadals forehand, which in theory would make it a bit easier at wimbledon than Nadal had. But I wouldn't call Alcaraz the talent for dominating wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

I agree.

I also think it's partly a matter of timing on clay and grass as well. Unlucky to play in the same clay era as same-aged Nadal, while on grass he got more openings due to Federer himself declining from his best years.

Yeah, but I think he would do great on grass in any era, he's less prone to upsets on that surface, excels on serve and return and is a great athlete. I can see him having the Agassi-like career on clay (more or less), but don't think he would be nearly as successful as on grass.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, but I think he would do great on grass in any era, he's less prone to upsets on that surface, excels on serve and return and is a great athlete. I can see him having the Agassi-like career on clay (more or less), but don't think he would be nearly as successful as on grass.

Fair enough, but I don't think he'd be very successful against Fed prime for prime on grass other than 1 win or 2 if lucky.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

Fair enough, but I don't think he'd be very successful against Fed prime for prime on grass other than 1 win or 2 if lucky.

Yeah, we disagree on this definitely. While I think Fed would lead the H2H, don't think it would be a massacre. But fair enough.

 

[btsjungkook]

I'm surprised at all the doubters of Alcaraz. If you watched how he plays you would see how complete his game is and he hasn't even reached his peak yet. I've watched a lot of Fedalovic matches and I feel Alcaraz can surpass their overall peak play. All of the big 3 had weaknesses despite being so great, yet Alcaraz already looks complete at only age 19 with no weakness to his game. He is definitely going to dominate soon especially as all has declined so we're not going to see how he would've faced them in their peak unfortunately.

 

[Omega_7000]

He will if he can improve his first serve and start getting free points on serve.

 

[DSH]

I'd bump this thread in 15 years to tell you.

That's a long time, buddy.

 

[v11]

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

While some of your points, like being a strong hitter on clay is an advantage, are valid, I strongly disagree with your overall assessment of Novak clay game.

He is the only player to beat Rafa twice at RG, and he has beaten him on every clay major. He won 3 times in Rome, 2 times at MC, and once in Madrid, tournament he skipped numerous times. He has taken him to exaust levels on multiple other occasions, when Rafa ultimately prevailed. Many matches ended in deciding set.

There is no player, however great one might be, who can achieve this feat without having the game suited to the surface.

Ultimately, your point on angle creation is way off, as it is universaly accepted among players, that Novak is able to produce best angles and to do that from both sides of the racquet, from inside of the court and wide. It is exactly the reason why Rafa had to give his best on clay, to go against Novak.

Whithout doubt, he has second highest level of clay play in history. Previous clay greats (Borg, Wilander, not to go back even further) might have been better, but technology and player preparation advanced so far, from their time, that levels simply aren't comparable. Novak faced the clay GOAT and pushed him the most, of any other player. That is the guy very suited to red dirt, in my book.

 

[Hitman]

Already has the most historic season by any teenager ever, so he is a trailblazer.

 

[toth]

I vote no
I think 20 GS win is too much for a tennis player
Even for Alcaraz

 

[DSH]

While some of your points, like being a strong hitter on clay is an advantage, are valid, I strongly disagree with your overall assessment of Novak clay game.

He is the only player to beat Rafa twice at RG, and he has beaten him on every clay major. He won 3 times in Rome, 2 times at MC, and once in Madrid, tournament he skipped numerous times. He has taken him to exaust levels on multiple other occasions, when Rafa ultimately prevailed. Many matches ended in deciding set.

There is no player, however great one might be, who can achieve this feat without having the game suited to the surface.

Ultimately, your point on angle creation is way off, as it is universaly accepted among players, that Novak is able to produce best angles and to do that from both sides of the racquet, from inside of the court and wide. It is exactly the reason why Rafa had to give his best on clay, to go against Novak.

Whithout doubt, he has second highest level of clay play in history. Previous clay greats (Borg, Wilander, not to go back even further) might have been better, but technology and player preparation advanced so far, from their time, that levels simply aren't comparable. Novak faced the clay GOAT and pushed him the most, of any other player. That is the guy very suited to red dirt, in my book.

If Nadal had the same stamina as Joker, the Serbian wolf would be no match for the Bull on clay, much less at Roland Garros.
The result of 2021 would never have happened, apart from the fact that Nadal played that edition of the tournament at a very low level for his standards there.

 

[v11]

If Nadal had the same stamina as Joker, the Serbian wolf would be no match for the Bull on clay, much less at Roland Garros.
The result of 2021 would never have happened, apart from the fact that Nadal played that edition of the tournament at a very low level for his standards there.

He was break up in Rafa's peak in 2013, and match ended 9:7 in fifth. Sums up pretty good stamina of both, who went at length in AO12, and numerous other occasions. They were both top players physically, Rafa being stronger, hence the edge on clay. Rafa is best on clay, Novak is second in level of play achieved.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Seeing he is 21 slams behind Djokovic, it's pretty useless to comment if he will or won't. Let the kid win at least 6 and become ATG then talk.

 

[Phenomenal]

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

There is no evidence that he is better on grass than clay in earlier years. I'm not Djokovic expert here but for me Djokovic was better player on clay than grass until like 2015. He goes deep almost every RG even his younger years. He is successfull in Rome.
Many people ignoring the fact that facing Nadal in his prime at RG is not something close to Djokovic dealing with other players like older Federer at Wimbledon. I don't think Djokovic lacks fire pover in his earlier years, don't think his serve was as good as later years.

I don't think Djokovic is top 3 greatest on clay but he was better on clay than grass until 2015 imo.

Until 2015 Djokovic has 2 Wimbledon and 0 RG. Do you think the reason is he is better on grass or he was facing against Nadal. He played lots of semi finals at RG.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Well to me it's quite obvious Novak's game is not really suited for clay and it translates better on grass. The reason why I think he's been successful on the dirt is his movement/defense and the fact that he's a great ballstriker, and the clay rewards the good ball-striking - Agassi is a great example.
What he lacks is that safe/reliable/high-margin power that could help him to finish up the points easier by either hitting through the dirt or forcing the error, without missing often. In other words, he doesn't hit heavy enough. The reactive/counter-punching tennis, which is a style I believe Novak still prefers when he isn't forced to play differently, isn't paying dividends on clay as much, you have to generate your own power.

I also think that he, while being a very solid grinder himself, doesn't really possess the patience of a true clay courter and pulls the trigger too soon, and that's necessary for clay. The ability to patiently construct the points by finding the angles and waiting for an opportunity to go for the open court is not his bread and butter. The guy lost to Federer and Wawrinka at RG during his best clay seasons, 2011 and 2015 respectively, and that tells something.

The reason he's achieved so much on clay has a lot to do with the lack of specialists imo (apart from his obvious qualities I already mentioned), if he had to play Kuertens, Costas, Corretjas, Ferreros etc in a row RG after RG after RG...I am sure he would see lots of broken racquets, lol.

While he is overrated on clay, I think he is often very underrated on grass, where his serve&return combo translates really well and can do a serious damage.

I disagree.

The first time I saw him play he was 17yo and was outplaying Coria who at the time was one of the best claycourters in the world until his breathing problems started. I don't think Costa or Corretja would do that much to a peak Djokovic. Ferrero maybe yes because he was really good on clay, anyone bar Nadal would struggle against him and even Nadal lost him in 2008 on clay. Kuerten was insanely good so everyone would struggle with him, Federer lost in straights against a washed Kuerten.

Losing to Federer at any slam doesn't mean much, he had double MP against Nadal on clay Bo5 and Wawrinka on clay when he's in the zone is extremely dangerous. It might be his best surface and his peak as a player is very high.

Most of the time Djokovic lost to Nadal at Roland Garros since 2012 if he was playing good tennis except running into a great Federer, Wawrinka or Thiem. Hardly bad losses since the days of Melzer and Kohlscreiber. Even in 2006, 2007 and 2008 he was stopped by Nadal.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Who knows if Carlos will have consistency after 4 years. Everyone keeps tracking his injuries. I don't know about that. He has a lot of money, his injuries would be fine. But form and other things no one has control over.

Djokovic won 4 slams in a row in 2015-16 and he went off the rails for 2 years. Exactly at Wimby 18 he came back. There are so many uncertainties.

Alcaraz has just won 1 grand slam. Not beating Djokovic Medvedev or Nadal, recent great us open players. He beat Sinner who may become great but is a choker and Cilic whose best year was probably 3 years ago, and Tiafoe who is not top player.

When you have luck of the draw you have to factor that in as well. Alcaraz is beating his generation guys but he is still a teenager. Best teenager since Nadal but still a teenager.

Del Potro won US Open in much much better fashion beating world number 1 and five time defending champion Roger Federer at his best slam at that point. If we look at straight wins and domination. Del Potro has not even won another grand slam. Even if Del Potro was fully fit I don't think he would have survived the Nadal Djokovic duopoly.

Big 3 are already considered GOAT. Alcaraz may become goat if he stays consistent keeps beating his peers and remains injury free. Anything can happen in long period of time.

 

[uscwang]

Bump this in say …18 years?

We should know by then.

Hard to say at this point.
Even if he has a talent at the Big 3 level, he also needs a Big 3 caliber rival to reach a peak as high and stay there as long. Many people don't seem to understand this.
If he wins a major every year for the next 18 years, he will still be a few titles short. Let this settle in a bit.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Rune is not dominating anything with that forehand he has, if you think rune is more talented than alcaraz, you probably havent watched them enough, i started to watch matches from both more than 3 years ago, doesnt matter how developed they are or arent, alcaraz is in another league in terms of talent, if injuries let him, he will let you all see that

Djokovic was asked to compare Rune with Carlos. It seems he doesn't agree with you since Novak says Rune has a great FH. When asked who was the better player, he answered:

"They are similar in terms of physicality. I think they are both really fit. They train very hard. They are very dedicated guys. They defend, both of them, extremely well.

Rune has the better backhand. Alcaraz has the better forehand. But they are both improving on those shots that maybe are not as good as maybe other shot. But when I say, you know, is “not as good,” meaning it’s not huge difference. I mean, they have great shots. I mean, great forehand from Rune or great backhand from Alcaraz.

They are very complete players for 19-year-olds. It’s quite impressive. Also their energy on the court, just wanting, motivating themselves and wanting to do well and staying mentally present, it’s impressive."

https://www.tennismajors.com/atp/ro...-two-teenagers-in-the-atps-top-10-633888.html

 

[Alcaraz takeover]

He can surpass them if he can improve his serve to world class levels. He needs to be able to get more easy points off his serve. If he and Juan Carlos can manage to do this, I don't see how Alcaraz can be beaten.

The key here is Alcaraz won't be facing 2 of the best players in history as his rivals throughout his career. The big 3 was a unique moment in sports history.

 

[heavyD]

He's listed at 6'1" but that has to be highly optimistic as he looks shorter than most guys he shakes hands with. I would feel more comfortable with future greatness if he was a little taller as he's not likely to ever have a big serve and is going to have to work a lot harder than the taller guys and he's already had some injury issues. I think Rune has more room to develop into a better player than Carlos who seems to already be in peak form for the most part although I'm sure his serve will be incrementally better in the coming years.

 

[Benf15harp3000]

No

 

[Ombelibable]

If men's slams become best of 3 during his career, Big 3 records are safe.

Hell, even otherwise they are safe. Don't put so much hope in a solo slam winner. Even if he becomes the best player of his generation, injuries can take him.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He can surpass them if he can improve his serve to world class levels. He needs to be able to get more easy points off his serve. If he and Juan Carlos can manage to do this, I don't see how Alcaraz can be beaten.

The key here is Alcaraz won't be facing 2 of the best players in history as his rivals throughout his career. The big 3 was a unique moment in sports history.

Is that guaranteed ?

 

[Alcaraz takeover]

Is that guaranteed ?

NOTHING is guaranteed my friend. I do expect to see an improved serve from Carlitos as his career progresses though

 

[KC!]

Let's just stay in the moment & enjoy his brilliant tennis. He is most exciting person to watch in tennis right now. He has all the former greats & the who's who of the famous wanting to witness his matches in person. Novak is still the one beat, but Carlos is definitely making a case as the next big thing. Medvedev, Sinner, FAA, Rune & a few others are also in the mix.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Already has the most historic season by any teenager ever, so he is a trailblazer.

I don't see how winning the USO and becoming #1 is more historic than Becker winning back to back Wimbledon's at age 17 and 18. But achieving the youngest #1 ranking ever is a huge deal.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, we disagree on this definitely. While I think Fed would lead the H2H, don't think it would be a massacre. But fair enough.

I say that mainly because Fed brought a high level for many more years than Djokovic, IMO. For Djoker's 2015, Fed has 2003-2006 for example.

 

[Alcaraz takeover]

I don't see how winning the USO and becoming #1 is more historic than Becker winning back to back Wimbledon's at age 17 and 18. But achieving the youngest #1 ranking ever is a huge deal.

Different times. Modern day accomplishments by teenagers are more impressive than what happened in the 1980's. Far more physical game.

 

[KC!]

I don't see how winning the USO and becoming #1 is more historic than Becker winning back to back Wimbledon's at age 17 and 18. But achieving the youngest #1 ranking ever is a huge deal.

Yes & I would throw in Borg too. He won his first Davis Cup match at 15 & won Roland Garros at 18. Won 11 grand slams by the time he was 26 & he didn't even play in the Australian Open but 1 time. He is greatest teenager ever, unfortunately he was burnout by 26.

 

[Lorenn]

Carlos Alcaraz has already made so many records in history, will he surpass the levels that Fedalovic gave us? He's already looking unbeatable at 19 and he seems to have no weaknesses in his game as all of Fedalovic had. He may become the next unstoppable force that a new Atg will have to solve, as he seems the most complete player of all time as of right now.

Maybe a poll would work well here.

 

[mike danny]

Different times. Modern day accomplishments by teenagers are more impressive than what happened in the 1980's. Far more physical game.

Wouldn't say far more physical. An almost 36 year old is the current world no.1.

 

[v11]

What is obvious from the start is that Carlos is the first player since great three (or four, for some), who has the same promise and who has already delivered. He is still not on their best level, and might not be, but there is no other but him. Rune is possibility, but not given, as Carlos. He might unlock it, there are signs. Sinner is level below. Generations between top 3 and new kids will never reach those heights.

 

[Hitman]

I don't see how winning the USO and becoming #1 is more historic than Becker winning back to back Wimbledon's at age 17 and 18. But achieving the youngest #1 ranking ever is a huge deal.

He was also the youngest year ending number one. It was historic. No other teenager has achieved the big three milestones ever in a single season.

 

[initialize]

He has a decent chance. With respect to his physique, fitness and skills, he has what it takes.

What those guys have shown is great focus, determination, playing great under pressure and most important of all, excellent decision making.

Federer played more instinctively (still read the game perfectly), with great pace. Fenomenal positioning and awesome anticipation.

Nadal never gives up and constantly plays to his own advantages. Probably best in executing prepared game plan. Underestimated skills, because he has them all, at highest level.

Novak is most cerebral on court, of the three, has more alternative game plans, sometimes plays mind games (not always in his favour), but is supreme under pressure. Probably highest peak of them all and definitely most complete.

Carlos needs these kind of qualities, in order to surpass them. He also needs motivation and for that, great competition is necessary. Someone to push him to the end. That is out of his hands, and he will most likely have lesser opponents. That might come in handy, when number of titles is in question, but might be a missing piece when it comes to fulfilling his maximum potential.

To be the best ever, everything needs to align.

decent analysis but Fed obviously has the highest peak

 

[Slicehand]

Djokovic was asked to compare Rune with Carlos. It seems he doesn't agree with you since Novak says Rune has a great FH. When asked who was the better player, he answered:

"They are similar in terms of physicality. I think they are both really fit. They train very hard. They are very dedicated guys. They defend, both of them, extremely well.

Rune has the better backhand. Alcaraz has the better forehand. But they are both improving on those shots that maybe are not as good as maybe other shot. But when I say, you know, is “not as good,” meaning it’s not huge difference. I mean, they have great shots. I mean, great forehand from Rune or great backhand from Alcaraz.

They are very complete players for 19-year-olds. It’s quite impressive. Also their energy on the court, just wanting, motivating themselves and wanting to do well and staying mentally present, it’s impressive."

https://www.tennismajors.com/atp/ro...-two-teenagers-in-the-atps-top-10-633888.html

Haha so yeah very politically correct, basically he says nothing, results back up what im saying, but at the same time, im not saying it because of results, but because i have seen A LOT of matches from both, rune is quite good and talented, also a very complete game, but far away from the crazy things carlos can do, just my opinion anyway

 

[v11]

decent analysis but Fed obviously has the highest peak

Not in terms of elo rating, difficulty of matches (no. of wins against top 10 and biggest rivals), h2h against real greats and all around quality and sustained match briliance. He also had vulnerable backhand, exposed by Rafa and exploited by few others. His nerves were also a bit subpar in direct comparison to Rafa and Novak. Without them, he would seem as obvious best, ever. Alas..

He was most enjoyable to watch, though.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Carlos Alcaraz has already made so many records in history, will he surpass the levels that Fedalovic gave us? He's already looking unbeatable at 19 and he seems to have no weaknesses in his game as all of Fedalovic had. He may become the next unstoppable force that a new Atg will have to solve, as he seems the most complete player of all time as of right now.

You need to add a poll to the thread dude its very easy

 

[NoleFam]

Probably should wait and bump this in 5 years.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Haha so yeah very politically correct, basically he says nothing, results back up what im saying, but at the same time, im not saying it because of results, but because i have seen A LOT of matches from both, rune is quite good and talented, also a very complete game, but far away from the crazy things carlos can do, just my opinion anyway

Yea I mean just look at the results lately crystal clear Alcaraz is a higher caliber player than Rune. No chance he loses to Wawrinka for example

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Alcaraz is the modern day Hewitt with a bit more luck of no modern Federer immediately in near sight, don't worry, he won't have a greater career than Andre Agassi even if the next Fed does not arrive soon.

My guess is Rune is the next Federer, he might transition into a beast in the next 2-3 years and then it is over for little Alcaraz.

Also Djokovic is present, even in old age he is still the man to beat, the road is not as open as we think.

Also it is worth noting that Big 3 were unbeatable for 90s gen, not Alcaraz, people like Zverev/Medvedev/Tsitsipas will be around for many years, he ain't waltzing his way to titles.

Just watch some teenage Federer and its very clear Rune doesn't have the special it factor Federer does.

 

[initialize]

Not in terms of elo rating, difficulty of matches (no. of wins against top 10 and biggest rivals), h2h against real greats and all around quality and sustained match briliance. He also had vulnerable backhand, exposed by Rafa and exploited by few others. His nerves were also a bit subpar in direct comparison to Rafa and Novak. Without them, he would seem as obvious best, ever. Alas..

He was most enjoyable to watch, though.

Fed definitely has the highest peak. It's why he's been able to hit "impossible" shots that Djokodal could only dream of. And everyone knows ELO is a bunch of rubbish lol

 

[aldeayeah]

Yea I mean just look at the results lately crystal clear Alcaraz is a higher caliber player than Rune. No chance he loses to Wawrinka for example

They're both 19 ffs

Lots of career left if injury allows

 

[Holmes]

The game moves forward. 20s/early 30s Djokodal, Fed, Sampras or McEnroe could not play in these conditions. Alcaraz has already surpassed them all. Whether he does so for Djokodal's peak level has yet to be seen.

 

[v11]

Fed definitely has the highest peak. It's why he's been able to hit "impossible" shots that Djokodal could only dream of. And everyone knows ELO is a bunch of rubbish lol

There is no argument in your reply. Just love for specific player. Prove with facts that he had higher peak. Most of facts support Novak, not Roger, in that aspect.

 

[initialize]

There is no argument in your reply. Just love for specific player. Prove with facts that he had higher peak. Most of facts support Novak, not Roger, in that aspect.

facts also say we're in the weakest era of all time, and Djokovic had the luxury of playing Roger who is 6 years older

 

[v11]

facts also say we're in the weakest era of all time, and Djokovic had the luxury of playing Roger who is 6 years older

That is arguing something totally different. Nadal won first match with Roger on hard court in 2004, with ease. Novak won AO 2008 match against Roger in straight sets. They were still kids, developing their game in what Roger fans claim is his peak, and still poke the king's armor, convincingly.

That was not the peak of his game. It came after, he improved because of Rafa and Novak. They all pushed each other to strive more and they succeed in efforts. 2004-08 were Roger's most dominant years in term of achievements/ titles, not his absolute peak level.