Tennis

[Richard.H]

I'm factoring in that players in the old days didn't take GS as the end all and be all. Just like teams in the old days didn't have their seasons defined by CL success or failure, irrespective of league win. In this social media and instant adulation/criticism age, Alcaraz will prioritize slams, especially after the benchmark set by the big 3.

Players back in the day didn't even play the AO and routinely skipped other slams as well. I think the likes of McEnroe, Agassi, and Borg would have way more slams than they did without the skipping.

So I'm not saying Alcaraz is of their level; he's lower (for now), but he's in an age where he will prioritize slams and win at least 7 IMO.

That's true regarding the older era, but in this day of social media, can players stay as disciplined as the big 3 when it comes to diet, training, mental training? The lengths that players like Nadal have gone to keep themselves at absolute best shape are insane and an underrated part of their success is how they managed to always stay healthy during their run.

I would love to see Alcaraz taking over, but I hope he realizes just how many sacrifices it requires to become a great. 7 slams seem reasonable if he continues to improve and stays healthy.

 

[Horatio]

I would love to see Alcaraz taking over

Whoa slow down there. He is still passionate madridista.

 

[KingLeo10]

Now that I've said this about Alcaraz, watch Djokovic come back next season without the ban and win 3 out of 4 slams (except the Nadal Open in Paris) and absolutely break Alcaraz's mind at AO, Wimbledon, and Flushing Meadows

I think Djokovic will end up with about 26 slams, Nadal 23 (1 more FO), and Fed 20.

 

[Richard.H]

Whoa slow down there. He is still passionate madridista.

Aren't all of them Madridistas? Which of them is a Barca fan?

 

[Hardy]

keep in mind that Agassi won 8 majors in the same era of Sampras, take out of picture Sampras and he ends his career I would say at least with 12 majors. For me Alcaraz is a generational player and I say this more because of the quality of his game than the fact he won already 2 master 1000 and Us Open, he really has the whole package, people keep talking about his serve, serve is the first shot in tennis that a player can improve massively over the years, and Alcaraz who's not that tall (I believe is like Nadal more or less) can already bomb 210-215 km/h first serve, he lacks placement but he has the power for a potential great serve when he will hit his prime. The real question about how many majors he can win is if he'll face another player (or more than one) of his same calibre in his career.

 

[Windhook]

Current big 2 in tennis at veteran age of 35+ still have no real competition from others. You couldn't name someone whom they've passed the torch and no matter how many titles they win, 25+ or whatever, someone from the next generation could surpass this record in no time, because of the lack of competition. One horse race like it is in Formula 1 in the last decade or so with Hamilton and Verstappen dominating their sport.

 

[Horatio]

Aren't all of them Madridistas? Which of them is a Barca fan?

Don't need to be a Barca fan. Could at least NOT support Madrid. Ruud for example.

 

[zanela]

WTA has been tepid for more than a decade. They no longer have the talent (young williams, Henin, Hingis etc) or a marketable face (Sharapova, Kournikova etc) to keep them relevant. So they need just about any reason to make them marketable again. Hence the hyping up of any supposed young talent (Radacanu, Fernandez) that basically follows a hollywood script: pretty talented girl from a poor multicultural background gets to realize her dreams despite the odds.

ATP, on the other hand, has and continues to produce quality tennis all year. Its not that the young gen is underwhelming but rather their competition happen to be three generational talents. ATP, unlike, WTA, doesn't need to hype its young talents because its audience are usually tennis purists.

Regardless of how many slams the likes of CAG, Sinner, Medvedev etc go on to win, they will still do better than any WTA 'it' girl.

 

[KingLeo10]

keep in mind that Agassi won 8 majors in the same era of Sampras, take out of picture Sampras and he ends his career I would say at least with 12 majors. For me Alcaraz is a generational player and I say this more because of the quality of his game than the fact he won already 2 master 1000 and Us Open, he really has the whole package, people keep talking about his serve, serve is the first shot in tennis that a player can improve massively over the years, and Alcaraz who's not that tall (I believe is like Nadal more or less) can already bomb 210-215 km/h first serve, he lacks placement but he has the power for a potential great serve when he will hit his prime. The real question about how many majors he can win is if he'll face another player (or more than one) of his same calibre in his career.

Not only competition, but Agassi was prone to self-sabotage. And he had that spine condition which limited his court mobility.

In terms of pure talent/ ball striking, he was a monster. Actually, what makes Nadal and Djokovic so unique is that they're not outrageously talented but they have the best mental game seen to date in tennis, if not across all sports (right up there with Jordan and Brady).

Federer has an average mental game for someone so talented. A talent of his level with Nadal/Djoko mental game should have 30 GS. Nadal was like 9-2 against him in GS (okay yeah, FO...but still 3-0 at AO and only 1-2 at Wimbledon) till like 2017; and Djokovic doesn't fear him at 40-15.

Borg also had a suspect mental game. I would say he was the second most talented player after Federer but Borg quit as soon as he had stiff competition at slams.

I agree with your overall assessment of Alcaraz though. I do think he needs to avoid PTSD next season from Djokovic to fulfill his potential.

 

[Horatio]

WTA has been tepid for more than a decade. They no longer have the talent (young williams, Henin, Hingis etc) or a marketable face (Sharapova, Kournikova etc) to keep them relevant. So they need just about any reason to make them marketable again. Hence the hyping up of any supposed young talent (Radacanu, Fernandez) that basically follows a hollywood script: pretty talented girl from a poor multicultural background gets to realize her dreams despite the odds.

Who's poor?

 

[zanela]

Don't need to be a Barca fan. Could at least NOT support Madrid. Ruud for example.

Whats with all the madridista malarkey. I have seen it posted quite a few times already. Is it somehow meant to deter others from appreciating athletes (outside of football), and wishing them well based on their loyalties? Such a parochial and tribal mindset to have, and which can only make your sporting and life's experiences a bit miserable.

Rafa, despite his catalan connection, is the biggest madridista out there. But his 'betrayal' didn't prevent scores of tennis fans regardless of their footballing camp to admire and follow his career. And it ain't going to be any different with Carlos or anyone else.

Who's poor?

thats the storyline.. financially difficult beginnings. As if that is meant to add credence to the actual tennis that is played/promoted.

 

[Windhook]

Not only competition, but Agassi was prone to self-sabotage. And he had that spine condition which limited his court mobility.

Didn't he have some drug problems around that time as well? He had fallen down to 230th in the rankings at some point and he managed to come back in the late 90's. He was personal favorite, although I acknowledge Pete Sampras was the dominating guy of the era.

 

[KingLeo10]

Didn't he have some drug problems around that time as well? He had fallen down to 230th in the rankings at some point and he managed to come back in the late 90's. He was personal favorite, although I acknowledge Pete Sampras was the dominating guy of the era.

He admitted using meth during that time period. But yeah, Sampras was a beast and better than Agassi. Terrific mental game and the best serve ever.

 

[Horatio]

thats the storyline.. financially difficult beginnings. As if that is meant to add credence to the actual tennis that is played/promoted.

Well...tennis is a pretty expensive sport. Do think kids from families that are better off have an easier time developing their skills from an early age on.

 

[zanela]

Well...tennis is a pretty expensive sport. Do think kids from families that are better off have an easier time developing their skills from an early age on.

Not disputing that.