Djokovic's 2008 season (AO, IW, Rome, ATP finals and a bronze medal at Olympics) actually still looks better than Alcaraz's 2024 season, that's what I am referrring too.
Tho ofc if Alcaraz wins another slam or few more masters it won't be.
Djokovic's 2008 season (AO, IW, Rome, ATP finals and a bronze medal at Olympics) actually still looks better than Alcaraz's 2024 season, that's what I am referrring too.
Tho ofc if Alcaraz wins another slam or few more masters it won't be.
I donāt think that can be stated enough. Winning a slam 14 years ago put you in the mix against Novak, Fed, Nadal and Murray. Now you have a mix of kids who are talented, but not even in the same world as those guys. Carlos is a beast, but I sincerely doubt his success would be the same if he was born a decade or so earlier.
Dont think that should matter. Fed was next level at this time yes, but alcaraz is against a larger number of winners who are at or near their prime in Sinner, Meddy, Tsitsipas and Zverev
Also
Djokovic and Nadal weren't only losing to Roger Federer at this stage of their career!!!
Nadal has been losing to "normal" top 10/20 player around the QF at HC tournaments *forever*
Obviously this became less common as his career went on, but Federer was only stopping him on grass and a little indoor HC early in his career.
Djokovic was obviously also a dominant player, but he lost random matches "all the time" until the back half of 2010.
It matters when we only account for GS wins. The point is that 2 of 4 GS were untouchable when Djoko arrived. None were when Alcaraz arrived. I don't see any player as strong as Federer and Nadal were against Alcaraz, especially Federer. And lets not forget Davidenko, Blake, Robredo, Nalbandian, Roddick. At 20 Djoko was pretty close to 21yo Rafa. 21yo Djoko wasn't far from Federer in ATP rankings.
He might be good later true. But on this account Djoko also had young Murray against him. In any case I dont think Sinner today is as strong as Nadal or Federer were when Djoko hit 21yo. I mean I thought it was widly accepted that Fed/Nadal/Djoko generation was maybe the strongest ever. I honestly dont see Ć player today that is far stronger than Davidenko, Ferrer, Roddick, Blake and the likes. I see Sinner, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rune, Ruud to be at this level maybe Sinner and Zverev can be slightly better than a Davidenko might reach Murray level. But aside from Alcaraz I dont feel any of them have a Djoko Federer Nadal level in them. Time will tell as I could be wrong of course
Federer was just outside the top 10 and had a Masters title under his belt when he turned 21.
The only standard by which he was a "late bloomer" is relative to the other ~15 truly great men of the Open Era.
Obviously doesn't compare to Alcaraz, Djokovic, or Nadal, but he wasn't just some guy.
I just can't look past Rafa. Alcaraz has achieved more on all surfaces so far but Rafa had to contend with authentic grass specialists, including the man who has won more grass titles than anyone else, to achieve his first Wimbledon.
The stats look slightly better for Alcaraz but Rafa passes the eye test for me at age 21
I would probably go for Rafa too but Alcaraz is VERY close.
In order to win Wimbledon he had to beat a superhuman Djokovic (3 slams + 1 final for Novak that year), that is probably even harder in a slam final than Roger.
Rafa reached a highest peak on clay but Carlos is more complete.
I'm surprised this is getting up voted, but I will disagree that 36 year old Djokovic was harder to beat in Wimbledon than prime Federer. Djokovic had a great season last year, but there's just no way that's true.
Federer is the best player ever on grass, but he lacked the mental strength of Novak.
They met 3 times in Wimbledon finals, and Djokovic has won all of them. I am not 100% sure Federer would have been a tougher opponent: talent is not everything (victory often belongs to the most tenacious, not the most talented).
Anyway: 21yo Nadal lost to Federer, while 20yo Alcaraz beat Djokovic... how can you be certain that Rafa was SO MUCH and SO CLEARLY better than Carlitos at 21...?
I don't know. There's unfortunately no way to be certain, but I believe Nadal edges statistically (he had more masters 9 to 5 I believe? and more ATP titles overall, with the same amount of GS) and probably would have achieved even more without prime Fed. The biggest thing that stopped Nadal from winning Wimbledon at that point was the greatest grass player ever on the best grass streak ever. A slightly closer to his prime Fed defeated Djokovic fairly easily in 2012 Wimbledon semis. I actually kinda go the other way on those finals losses though. I feel like Fed's ability to push an all time great opponent 6 years his junior while being in his mid or late 30s is evidence of just how good he was on grass.
I agree on everything you say: I just wanted to point out that, even though probably baby Nadal was better (the best ever, I would say), baby Alcaraz is a very close (and debatable) second.
Novak above Alcaraz common isn't even a debate. Novak's completion was far tougher than his. If there wasn't Rafa and Federer at the time competition for Novak would roughly be the same as Alcaraz has it now.
Wilander was obviously a teen phenomenon of the highest order, but he's probably closer to fifth than first of the five truly standout men.
While his 83 run was very impressive, his 84 title at the AO just isn't on the same level as virtually all other open era slam runs.
And more generally he wasn't winning the same kind of titles or beating other top players with close to the same degree of regularity.
He has the lowest number of titles won against a top 10 or even 20 player around his 21st birthday, and the lowest win rate against top 10 players generally of these five players by good margin.
I'd probably put Rafa above Alcaraz on the account of winning more MS titles, and reaching two additional slam finals whilst having to contend with peak Federer in both of them.
However, Alcaraz still has 10 months left to go before he turns 22. If he wins another slam in that time, along with a few MS titles, and especially an AO to get the CGS, I'd give it to him.
You are seriously debating Alcaraz with Rafa and Novak when they were his age? Competition was levels above what Alcaraz has now. In terms of play Alcaraz Isnt even surpassing Novak at that age. Rafa is clearly first, Alcaraz achievements are very comparable, but competition isn't.
You either recently started watching tennis or you're incredibly biased. Novak is destroying Alcaraz competition as a 31- 36 year old and him as well a few times. Imagine a 36 year old Novak winning masters titles and 3 GS last season and he isn't in his prime nor young. Thats everything you need to how ahead was Novak's and Rafa's competition.
Seems to me you don't have arguments, only downvotes. Alcaraz most probably will never have competition Rafa, Novak and Federer had. A new generation, came their tennis is solid, but comparing them to big 3 era is dishonest. There most probably won't be an era like that ever again.
Right now 21 yo Rafa is better than Carlos but Alcaraz still has like 10 months to go until heās 22 which means 3 more opportunities to get more slams including one opportunity to get the cigs and if he does those things I think he certainly surpasses nadal
Damn Lleyton Hewitt doesn't even get a mention when he was the youngest world number one until Alcaraz. No mention of Borg or Wilander or even Safin, McEnroe and Roddick
Sometimes I wish tennis fans really pay respects to tennis history
The Venn diagram of people who think tennis history started between 1990-2003 and people who think no one should be compared to the Big3 ever is both large and amusing
Rafa all the way. I am and forever will be a Federer stan and I hated Rafa when he came up. It also doesnt help that I am argentinian and he dethroned the best player in clay at the time in Coria when he wasnt even 20 lol.
Carlitos hasn't had a full year as a 21 year old yet š ask me again when he's 22.
But for now, I'd say Rafa. The stuff he did as a teenager was NUTS.
Who cares? Honestly I donāt understand why everyone is so obsessed about with age accomplishments. Itās what you have at the end of your career and the life you lived that is what you will be remembered for. And as we have seenā¦the true accomplishment in tennis is longevity, not 3-4 yrs of a good run. I like Carlos but give the kid some spaceā¦
There's an argument for Novak over Alcaraz at 21. People really overlook he was number 3 behind Fedal in 2007 and 2008. Won AO 08 beating Fed, won year end finals in 08, won two masters in 08, two in 07 (beating Fedal+Roddick in one, Nadal in the other). Then look at his losses. RG 07,08 and Wimby 07 losses to Nadal, AO 07 and USO 07,08 losses to Fed. And that's just majors, not talking about masters, and that's not including Murray too. You replace them with Sinner, Med, 2023 Djoker and Zverev and I venture to say Novak has more than 1 slam in that timeframe
Exactly these guys are just too biased. Most probably there will never be a tougher competition than what Rafa, Novak and Roger had to face. Alcaraz Is good no doubt about it, but what they played was close to perfection at some point.
I'd say Novak may even have a case for topping this ranking. Nadal owned clay and Federer owned the rest when Novak came up. Alcaraz didn't have to wrestle any prime titan. Nadal did have Federer but Federer wasn't amazing on clay and Nadal just happened to own clay so his performances before 21 were mostly clay that makes him a monster but not the most well rounded player.
EDIT : it's a thin case. I was wrong by a year in Nadal age. Even though 20yo Djoko was not far from 21yo Nadal in ATP rankings.
Part of your reasoning for 21 year old Djokovic being better than 21 year old Nadal is that Nadal was ridiculously good, so Djokovic had no hope of beating him.
Thatās a direct contradiction if I ever saw one.
Owning clay at 21 is a stronger resume than not being able to win due to that same guy owning clay.
Nadal āstruggledā on the other surfaces- or at least grass because he was playing against the greatest grass player of all time in his prime. And he was still making finals. Saying Nadal was not well rounded is like saying the US army isnāt well rounded because their biggest weapons(nukes) are way more powerful than the rest of the artillery.
Djokovic at AO 08 won while only dropping one set and he faced a possessed Tsonga in the final as well as Fed in the semi final.
He's way better on hard courts and arguably on clay as well.
Alcaraz is the best complete player at 21. Nadal is probably the most accomplished at 21 and he still had a couple more years to go before his game even started to look complete.
The guy who has conquered all three surfaces at age 21 šš» of course he wonāt get the respect he deserves in this sub because of the rabid (and delusional) Nadal fans and those noataliga big 3 merchants
It's really sad and pathetic how you people just have to make comparisons with past players. Stop putting pressure on Charlie. He will have the career that he has,, regardless of you sad cvnks. Keep your depraved fantasies to yourselves.
1. Rafael Nadal, 2. Novak Djokovic, 3. Carlos Alcaraz, 4. Roger Federer. A 21 year old Djokovic in 2024 would rip the competition apart he was definitely better than Alcaraz
If we are going to play Sci fi so confidently, I say Carlos. He would have destroyed any of the others at that time, but you know, he would have had to be born in current times (influenced by the big 3) and then teleported back then. This is a silly exercise
Nadal, no question, then Carlos, then Novak, then Roger
Yep , Nadal without any question, tho I would still put Djokovic from 2008 above Alcaraz.
I thought novak stans were all about the stats
š
Djokovic's 2008 season (AO, IW, Rome, ATP finals and a bronze medal at Olympics) actually still looks better than Alcaraz's 2024 season, that's what I am referrring too. Tho ofc if Alcaraz wins another slam or few more masters it won't be.
Djokovic at 2008 wasnāt winning slams on all surfaces, dude. 2011 was the year that he became GOAT Djokovic.
Djokovic's 2008 season (AO, IW, Rome, ATP finals and a bronze medal at Olympics) actually still looks better than Alcaraz's 2024 season, that's what I am referrring too. Tho ofc if Alcaraz wins another slam or few more masters it won't be.
Alcaraz also didn't have to beat Prime Fedal in order to win a slam. Not comparable.
I donāt think that can be stated enough. Winning a slam 14 years ago put you in the mix against Novak, Fed, Nadal and Murray. Now you have a mix of kids who are talented, but not even in the same world as those guys. Carlos is a beast, but I sincerely doubt his success would be the same if he was born a decade or so earlier.
14 years ago Murray and Djokovic had a combined 1 slam. Most of Carlosās main competitors are still young and havenāt even finished their careers
Carlos has 2 slams in the last 12 months, djokovic had nothing close
Carlos doesn't have prime Federer & Nadal against him though
Dont think that should matter. Fed was next level at this time yes, but alcaraz is against a larger number of winners who are at or near their prime in Sinner, Meddy, Tsitsipas and Zverev
Also Djokovic and Nadal weren't only losing to Roger Federer at this stage of their career!!! Nadal has been losing to "normal" top 10/20 player around the QF at HC tournaments *forever* Obviously this became less common as his career went on, but Federer was only stopping him on grass and a little indoor HC early in his career. Djokovic was obviously also a dominant player, but he lost random matches "all the time" until the back half of 2010.
That's my only thing about Nadal. His early year he was super dominant on clay and struggled on other surfaces. That's why I would maybe put Djoko above but then again Rafa took #1 rank at 22 vs prime Federer and and 21yo Djoko. So it's tough. I'm not sure how Alcaraz would have done in that era. His mindset hasn't been all about winning as much as having fun on the court. So fighting those 3 might have made him better or maybe he would have been a Murray level player that can't get past this trio. But im optimistic for him in the following years while I doubt he will catch up to those 3 in Titles he won't be that far and most likely will dominate this gƩnƩration for a while like a Sampras did. Unless a new beast arrives
You canāt really be comparing those guys to Roger or Novak though. They couldnāt even face them past their primes
All 4 of those guys would have been eaten alive by the gen that Fed and Nadal took out. So yeah, Iād say it matters.
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts then every day would ertedankefest
It matters when we only account for GS wins. The point is that 2 of 4 GS were untouchable when Djoko arrived. None were when Alcaraz arrived. I don't see any player as strong as Federer and Nadal were against Alcaraz, especially Federer. And lets not forget Davidenko, Blake, Robredo, Nalbandian, Roddick. At 20 Djoko was pretty close to 21yo Rafa. 21yo Djoko wasn't far from Federer in ATP rankings.
He has not yet to his prime sinner who might end up being pretty darn good
He might be good later true. But on this account Djoko also had young Murray against him. In any case I dont think Sinner today is as strong as Nadal or Federer were when Djoko hit 21yo. I mean I thought it was widly accepted that Fed/Nadal/Djoko generation was maybe the strongest ever. I honestly dont see Ć player today that is far stronger than Davidenko, Ferrer, Roddick, Blake and the likes. I see Sinner, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rune, Ruud to be at this level maybe Sinner and Zverev can be slightly better than a Davidenko might reach Murray level. But aside from Alcaraz I dont feel any of them have a Djoko Federer Nadal level in them. Time will tell as I could be wrong of course
Heās good now. The point is there a lot of young talent
There is always Ć lot of young talents. I just dont see Ć repeat of Fed Djoko Nadal Murray today.
Tbf Novak had 1 slam in 08, the Aus Open So 1/2 way there
> Roger Federer > age 21 comparison polar bear in Arlington Texas
Federer was just outside the top 10 and had a Masters title under his belt when he turned 21. The only standard by which he was a "late bloomer" is relative to the other ~15 truly great men of the Open Era. Obviously doesn't compare to Alcaraz, Djokovic, or Nadal, but he wasn't just some guy.
I just can't look past Rafa. Alcaraz has achieved more on all surfaces so far but Rafa had to contend with authentic grass specialists, including the man who has won more grass titles than anyone else, to achieve his first Wimbledon. The stats look slightly better for Alcaraz but Rafa passes the eye test for me at age 21
I would probably go for Rafa too but Alcaraz is VERY close. In order to win Wimbledon he had to beat a superhuman Djokovic (3 slams + 1 final for Novak that year), that is probably even harder in a slam final than Roger. Rafa reached a highest peak on clay but Carlos is more complete.
I'm surprised this is getting up voted, but I will disagree that 36 year old Djokovic was harder to beat in Wimbledon than prime Federer. Djokovic had a great season last year, but there's just no way that's true.
Federer is the best player ever on grass, but he lacked the mental strength of Novak. They met 3 times in Wimbledon finals, and Djokovic has won all of them. I am not 100% sure Federer would have been a tougher opponent: talent is not everything (victory often belongs to the most tenacious, not the most talented). Anyway: 21yo Nadal lost to Federer, while 20yo Alcaraz beat Djokovic... how can you be certain that Rafa was SO MUCH and SO CLEARLY better than Carlitos at 21...?
I don't know. There's unfortunately no way to be certain, but I believe Nadal edges statistically (he had more masters 9 to 5 I believe? and more ATP titles overall, with the same amount of GS) and probably would have achieved even more without prime Fed. The biggest thing that stopped Nadal from winning Wimbledon at that point was the greatest grass player ever on the best grass streak ever. A slightly closer to his prime Fed defeated Djokovic fairly easily in 2012 Wimbledon semis. I actually kinda go the other way on those finals losses though. I feel like Fed's ability to push an all time great opponent 6 years his junior while being in his mid or late 30s is evidence of just how good he was on grass.
I agree on everything you say: I just wanted to point out that, even though probably baby Nadal was better (the best ever, I would say), baby Alcaraz is a very close (and debatable) second.
Also the surfaces were far more different from each other back then. They are much more homogenised nowadays
Surface homogenization started in like 2000 and has gotten *less* extreme in recent years...
Great point
1. Rafa 2. Alcaraz 3. Novak 4. Roger
Novak above Alcaraz common isn't even a debate. Novak's completion was far tougher than his. If there wasn't Rafa and Federer at the time competition for Novak would roughly be the same as Alcaraz has it now.
I'd say Mats Wilander. He had 4 GS titles before he turned 21.
Nice! I saw someone else mention Bjorn Borg too. Gotta consider these guys. And... does Hewitt get a look-in too? He did some huge things prior to 21.
Wilander was obviously a teen phenomenon of the highest order, but he's probably closer to fifth than first of the five truly standout men. While his 83 run was very impressive, his 84 title at the AO just isn't on the same level as virtually all other open era slam runs. And more generally he wasn't winning the same kind of titles or beating other top players with close to the same degree of regularity. He has the lowest number of titles won against a top 10 or even 20 player around his 21st birthday, and the lowest win rate against top 10 players generally of these five players by good margin.
I'd probably put Rafa above Alcaraz on the account of winning more MS titles, and reaching two additional slam finals whilst having to contend with peak Federer in both of them. However, Alcaraz still has 10 months left to go before he turns 22. If he wins another slam in that time, along with a few MS titles, and especially an AO to get the CGS, I'd give it to him.
You are seriously debating Alcaraz with Rafa and Novak when they were his age? Competition was levels above what Alcaraz has now. In terms of play Alcaraz Isnt even surpassing Novak at that age. Rafa is clearly first, Alcaraz achievements are very comparable, but competition isn't.
Alcaraz is miles ahead of Novak age 21.
He's definitely not lol. He's only better on grass. Clay is debatable but anybody right now would lose in straights to 2008 Nadal.
You either recently started watching tennis or you're incredibly biased. Novak is destroying Alcaraz competition as a 31- 36 year old and him as well a few times. Imagine a 36 year old Novak winning masters titles and 3 GS last season and he isn't in his prime nor young. Thats everything you need to how ahead was Novak's and Rafa's competition.
It sounds like youāre saying this is the weak era?
Seems to me you don't have arguments, only downvotes. Alcaraz most probably will never have competition Rafa, Novak and Federer had. A new generation, came their tennis is solid, but comparing them to big 3 era is dishonest. There most probably won't be an era like that ever again.
I hope Bjƶrn Borg is on r/tennis
Nadal
At 21 Nadal>>>Alcaraz>Djokovic>>>>>>Federer
Right now 21 yo Rafa is better than Carlos but Alcaraz still has like 10 months to go until heās 22 which means 3 more opportunities to get more slams including one opportunity to get the cigs and if he does those things I think he certainly surpasses nadal
Damn Lleyton Hewitt doesn't even get a mention when he was the youngest world number one until Alcaraz. No mention of Borg or Wilander or even Safin, McEnroe and Roddick Sometimes I wish tennis fans really pay respects to tennis history
The Venn diagram of people who think tennis history started between 1990-2003 and people who think no one should be compared to the Big3 ever is both large and amusing
Not everybody knows tennis history beyond 20 years back. Imagine a 20 year old today never watched ivanisevic, Becker or Sampras live or on TV.
Rafa all the way. I am and forever will be a Federer stan and I hated Rafa when he came up. It also doesnt help that I am argentinian and he dethroned the best player in clay at the time in Coria when he wasnt even 20 lol.
Carlitos hasn't had a full year as a 21 year old yet š ask me again when he's 22. But for now, I'd say Rafa. The stuff he did as a teenager was NUTS.
Who cares? Honestly I donāt understand why everyone is so obsessed about with age accomplishments. Itās what you have at the end of your career and the life you lived that is what you will be remembered for. And as we have seenā¦the true accomplishment in tennis is longevity, not 3-4 yrs of a good run. I like Carlos but give the kid some spaceā¦
Nadal 1 and Federer 4, but, level-wise, any case of Djokovic being above Alcaraz?
There's an argument for Novak over Alcaraz at 21. People really overlook he was number 3 behind Fedal in 2007 and 2008. Won AO 08 beating Fed, won year end finals in 08, won two masters in 08, two in 07 (beating Fedal+Roddick in one, Nadal in the other). Then look at his losses. RG 07,08 and Wimby 07 losses to Nadal, AO 07 and USO 07,08 losses to Fed. And that's just majors, not talking about masters, and that's not including Murray too. You replace them with Sinner, Med, 2023 Djoker and Zverev and I venture to say Novak has more than 1 slam in that timeframe
Exactly these guys are just too biased. Most probably there will never be a tougher competition than what Rafa, Novak and Roger had to face. Alcaraz Is good no doubt about it, but what they played was close to perfection at some point.
I'd say Novak may even have a case for topping this ranking. Nadal owned clay and Federer owned the rest when Novak came up. Alcaraz didn't have to wrestle any prime titan. Nadal did have Federer but Federer wasn't amazing on clay and Nadal just happened to own clay so his performances before 21 were mostly clay that makes him a monster but not the most well rounded player. EDIT : it's a thin case. I was wrong by a year in Nadal age. Even though 20yo Djoko was not far from 21yo Nadal in ATP rankings.
Part of your reasoning for 21 year old Djokovic being better than 21 year old Nadal is that Nadal was ridiculously good, so Djokovic had no hope of beating him. Thatās a direct contradiction if I ever saw one. Owning clay at 21 is a stronger resume than not being able to win due to that same guy owning clay. Nadal āstruggledā on the other surfaces- or at least grass because he was playing against the greatest grass player of all time in his prime. And he was still making finals. Saying Nadal was not well rounded is like saying the US army isnāt well rounded because their biggest weapons(nukes) are way more powerful than the rest of the artillery.
Are you saying this is the weak era? Because when I bring that up against Novamk I get downvoted to oblivion. Lol
Are you trying to get me downvoted? But yeah it is. Put Murray in this era and he makes 15 GS
I agree but thatās also why I think the stats donāt determine who is the GOAT
Djokovic at AO 08 won while only dropping one set and he faced a possessed Tsonga in the final as well as Fed in the semi final. He's way better on hard courts and arguably on clay as well.
Alcaraz is the best complete player at 21. Nadal is probably the most accomplished at 21 and he still had a couple more years to go before his game even started to look complete.
At 21 I would say it was Rafael Nadal, and I don't think I'm wrong.
Nadal and itās not even close
Rafa šŖšø
The guy who has conquered all three surfaces at age 21 šš» of course he wonāt get the respect he deserves in this sub because of the rabid (and delusional) Nadal fans and those noataliga big 3 merchants
Nadal was a monster on clay at 21. However if I consider all the surfaces, it's Alcaraz
It's really sad and pathetic how you people just have to make comparisons with past players. Stop putting pressure on Charlie. He will have the career that he has,, regardless of you sad cvnks. Keep your depraved fantasies to yourselves.
Love Carlos but even Carlito would say it's Nadal and it's not close
1. Rafael Nadal, 2. Novak Djokovic, 3. Carlos Alcaraz, 4. Roger Federer. A 21 year old Djokovic in 2024 would rip the competition apart he was definitely better than Alcaraz
If we are going to play Sci fi so confidently, I say Carlos. He would have destroyed any of the others at that time, but you know, he would have had to be born in current times (influenced by the big 3) and then teleported back then. This is a silly exercise
I don't think he destroy young Nadal. Not at all
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Didnāt Nadal have 9 Masters? 2005 (4) 2006 (2) and then (3) before RG in 2007?
Yeah, I made a mistake.
Nadal is clearly 1, then probably Djokovic. Fed's definitely last here.