2026 ATP General News

[El Dude]

Here's a chart depicting the titles and Slams (QF or better) from the two-Slam winners. Take it for what its worth:

As I said, I definitely think Nastase is easily the best two-Slam winner. In my own greatness rankings, I actually have him ahead of players like Kuerten, Ashe, and Courier, and very close to Vilas.

But for me, Zverev, Smith, and Hewitt are debatable, but the next group.

After that, I like Safin and Rafter similarly, and remember them as better than Kafelnikov. I'd probably also boost Bruguera over Kriek, as Kriek's Slams were among the very weakest of the Open Era (thus their smaller size cells).

 

[El Dude]

Thanks, but I was actually interested in the "slams only" category, as I figured it was quite a good one. The curious part is that, not too long ago, people would say that Zverev was a choker at majors. Maybe that was true, but, liking the guy or not, the turnaround is remarkable.

Yesterday I checked my 2025 predictions, and there I put that Zverev would be win a major. I was one year ahead, could be worst...

I think the Mac in '84 vs. Zverev in '26 illustrates the problem of "Slam only," especially across eras.

 

[Kieran]

I think of Hewitt as an interim champ, kind of like Jim Courier about a decade before, who was a tough guy between the reigns of the fading 80’s greats like Lendl, Becker and Edberg, and the record breaking reign of Pete.

When Pete began to show serious signs of fading, Hewitt clipped him a few times, and then when Federer began to dominate, Hewitt became a watered down champ.

Fun fact: in an old job, my gaffer was a serious gambler. When Sampras lost to a Brit at Wimbledon in 2002 (not Henman), I told the gaffer to bet on Pete winning the USO, and to make it tasty, he’ll beat Agassi in the final. He told me to f-off. I told him to lay the bet, I’m so sure of this that I bought my ticket for the flights - and final.

Well this came true and he didn’t place the bet. In 2003 I told him to bet on Karlovic v Hewitt in the first round of Wimbledon. He said, wuh, who, wuh? I don’t know what the odds were but he placed the bet. And won fairly big. He offered me some but I knew he was strapped and I told him no thanks.

Lovely fella, but a lousy gambler, unfortunately..

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think of Hewitt as an interim champ, kind of like Jim Courier about a decade before, who was a tough guy between the reigns of the fading 80’s greats like Lendl, Becker and Edberg, and the record breaking reign of Pete.

When Pete began to show serious signs of fading, Hewitt clipped him a few times, and then when Federer began to dominate, Hewitt became a watered down champ.

Fun fact: in an old job, my gaffer was a serious gambler. When Sampras lost to a Brit at Wimbledon in 2002 (not Henman), I told the gaffer to bet on Pete winning the USO, and to make it tasty, he’ll beat Agassi in the final. He told me to f-off. I told him to lay the bet, I’m so sure of this that I bought my ticket for the flights - and final.

Well this came true and he didn’t place the bet. In 2003 I told him to bet on Karlovic v Hewitt in the first round of Wimbledon. He said, wuh, who, wuh? I don’t know what the odds were but he placed the bet. And won fairly big. He offered me some but I knew he was strapped and I told him no thanks.

Lovely fella, but a lousy gambler, unfortunately..

Yeah, Jim Courier is another one with a very high peak, but a very short prime. He was good from 1991-93, then just suddenly dropped off the face of the planet.

I'm a huge Pete fan, but I know his last really great year was in 1998, and his last good year was in 2000. Pete singlehandedly made Safin and Hewitt Hall of Famers. If Pete had just won those matches, he has 16 slams (and a record 7 US Opens), but more importantly, Safin and Hewitt would have been one slam wonders.

Pete winning the 2002 US Open was either a feeling you had or not because based on his form that year, there's no way that anyone can foresee that. Pete was really bad in 2002, and that's putting it nicely. He was losing in the first or second round of every tournament that year, even in the US Open warm-up tournaments. That 2002 US Open run was like nostalgia in real time!

That 2003 Karlovic-Hewitt match was very shocking at the time. In hindsight, this is clearly the moment you could start to see his decline.

 

[El Dude]

I think of Hewitt as an interim champ, kind of like Jim Courier about a decade before, who was a tough guy between the reigns of the fading 80’s greats like Lendl, Becker and Edberg, and the record breaking reign of Pete.

When Pete began to show serious signs of fading, Hewitt clipped him a few times, and then when Federer began to dominate, Hewitt became a watered down champ.

Fun fact: in an old job, my gaffer was a serious gambler. When Sampras lost to a Brit at Wimbledon in 2002 (not Henman), I told the gaffer to bet on Pete winning the USO, and to make it tasty, he’ll beat Agassi in the final. He told me to f-off. I told him to lay the bet, I’m so sure of this that I bought my ticket for the flights - and final.

Well this came true and he didn’t place the bet. In 2003 I told him to bet on Karlovic v Hewitt in the first round of Wimbledon. He said, wuh, who, wuh? I don’t know what the odds were but he placed the bet. And won fairly big. He offered me some but I knew he was strapped and I told him no thanks.

Lovely fella, but a lousy gambler, unfortunately..

I think "interim champ" is pretty accurate with regards to Hewitt, even if it can sound a bit harsh. 80 weeks at #1 is a solid tenure, after all. Yes, it was a week field, but he was still the overall best player for a year and a half. But I agree in that Hewitt was a default #1 because there were no greats having great years. This has happened several times over the Open Era, though mostly within a season, and not as the YE1. Agassi was still in good form, but let's be honest: Andre really only had two great years (1995, 1999) and then a ton of years in which he was more of a #3-10 guy.

Anyhow, I think you could argue that Hewitt's 2001-02 years were the worst #1 seasons in Open Era history. Ignoring the shortened 2020 season, other candidates include Connors in 75, McEnroe in 82, Sampras in 98, Kuerten in 2000, and Carlos in 2022 -- all weak #1 seasons, and most in which another player or two was arguably better. Ashe and Borg were both probably better than Connors that year; Lendl and Connors were better than Mac; you could make an argument for Rios in '98, Safin in 2000, and Rafa in 2022. Kuerten was better for most of 2001, but then faded late. But Hewitt was the clear best player in 2002.

Courier is an interesting case. I don't think Edberg really started fading until 1993. He was still in prime form in '92, but Courier wrestled the #1 ranking from him, first by vanquishing him in the AO, then winning the French Open. But certainly Lendl was on the downslope after '89, Wilander was basically done, and Becker was wobbly in 92-93. Pete didn't find his full form until '93, when he eclipsed Courier (and everyone else). But my point is that Courier wrestled the #1 ranking from Edberg while Stefan was still basically as good as ever.

Courier has an unusual career arc, because his 91-93 seasons would fit right in with the peak years of Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, but he dropped too far in '94 and after for him to accumulate a similar career resume. But my point is, peak Courier is--at least--close to those three.

Or consider this: Courier's best year was '92. By my accounting, Agassi (1999), Wilander (1988) and Becker (1989) only have one season each that was better than it; Edberg's best (1990) was a hair below. If you look at three best years, Courier's 91-93 is comparable to the three best of all four of those guys.

Meaning, Courier had a similar peak to those guys, but the separation comes from everything else. This is illustrated by his lopsided year-end rankings: top 3 for three years, but only made the top ten in one other season, top 20 in one more, and then six years in the 21-43 range.

 

[El Dude]

That 2003 Karlovic-Hewitt match was very shocking at the time. In hindsight, this is clearly the moment you could start to see his decline.

I dunno, he seemed to bounce back in 2004-05, but by then Roger and then Rafa were crushing everyone. Meaning, I think prime Hewitt is 2000-05, even if his very best was 2001-02. But he was an elite player for all of 2000-05, except for an off year in 2004 (I think he was injured for part of the year).

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, Jim Courier is another one with a very high peak, but a very short prime. He was good from 1991-93, then just suddenly dropped off the face of the planet.

I'm a huge Pete fan, but I know his last really great year was in 1998, and his last good year was in 2000. Pete singlehandedly made Safin and Hewitt Hall of Famers. If Pete had just won those matches, he has 16 slams (and a record 7 US Opens), but more importantly, Safin and Hewitt would have been one slam wonders.

Pete winning the 2002 US Open was either a feeling you had or not because based on his form that year, there's no way that anyone can foresee that. Pete was really bad in 2002, and that's putting it nicely. He was losing in the first or second round of every tournament that year, even in the US Open warm-up tournaments. That 2002 US Open run was like nostalgia in real time!

That 2003 Karlovic-Hewitt match was very shocking at the time. In hindsight, this is clearly the moment you could start to see his decline.

I predicted it, brother. I predicted it on the forums too. I told the missus, we’re heading to New York, and we watched Pete beat Andy in the QF, and had our tickets already for the Final. Yes, it’s a fluke also because there’s no way I’d guess the exact final, but I did. I wish I was a gambler, but I’m not.

I watched the semis on a big screen outside the Rockerfeller Center. I’d followed Pete’s progress across the North American swing and he was still losing, but he was losing close matches. But the icing on the cake was that he faced Rusedski in round 2 of the USO. Myself and the missus listened to it on BBC Radio 5-live, in the middle of the night. That was a close match too, but he was never going to lose to the nouveau Brit. That match brought the old Pete back to unbeatable form. By the way, listening to tennis on the radio is a great experience, depending on the commentators.

We flew out straight after staying up all night listening to the Tommy Haas match, in round four, which was his first big victory in a while…

 

[the AntiPusher]

HE'S BACK.. RAFA is returning.. well sorta..

https://www.flashscore.co.uk/news/n...ition-matches-against-former-rivals/viyFtGb3/

 

[the AntiPusher]

Here's a chart depicting the titles and Slams (QF or better) from the two-Slam winners. Take it for what its worth:

View attachment 11078

As I said, I definitely think Nastase is easily the best two-Slam winner. In my own greatness rankings, I actually have him ahead of players like Kuerten, Ashe, and Courier, and very close to Vilas.

But for me, Zverev, Smith, and Hewitt are debatable, but the next group.

After that, I like Safin and Rafter similarly, and remember them as better than Kafelnikov. I'd probably also boost Bruguera over Kriek, as Kriek's Slams were among the very weakest of the Open Era (thus their smaller size cells).

I know numbers tell somewhat everything yet Safin is heads and shoulders above this group.. Safin beat Sampras (although he was jaded) and Roger as be was turning into the ROG.. the beginning of his prime. Safin should have 3 slams and come on we know why he lost to Johannsson

 

[El Dude]

I know numbers tell somewhat everything yet Safin is heads and shoulders above this group.. Safin beat Sampras (although he was jaded) and Roger as be was turning into the ROG.. the beginning of his prime. Safin should have 3 slams and come on we know why he lost to Johannsson

View attachment 11084

I think people commonly equate peak level--which is often based upon a specific match or series of matches and ultimately remembered impressions--with overall greatness. I think peak level is an aspect of greatness, but not the only factor.

Someone like Safin is viewed as an underachiever in that he showed the ability to accomplish more than he actually did. Of Roger's generation---and really, an generation--he and Nalbandian are the ultimate "what if" players in that both could/should have been better than their actual career results. But we can't say that what (we think) he "should" have done is how great he was, or to the point here, where he should exist on a list of ranking two-Slam winners. In the end, peak potential has to be balanced with actual results. Meaning, greatness is also about how a player translates their talent into actual match wins and trophies.

But if we were making a lot of "most talented two Slam winners," I think you can argue that Safin would be #1.

I do think the question of underachievement and just pure talent is fun to talk about, but it isn't the same thing as overall greatness. And even when incorporating peak level, I think it is better to consider, say, "best year" and/or "best three years," because at least a full year requires some consistency from a player.

When compiling lists of "best of X group," it pretty much has to come down to actual accomplishments. Not only is "what should have been" highly subjective, but veering too far in that direction is unfair to the players who actually maximized their ability, or come closer to it.

Otherwise, I mean, we'd be left with David Nalbandian as the GOAT .

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think people commonly equate peak level--which is often based upon a specific match or series of matches and ultimately remembered impressions--with overall greatness. I think peak level is an aspect of greatness, but not the only factor.

Someone like Safin is viewed as an underachiever in that he showed the ability to accomplish more than he actually did. Of Roger's generation---and really, an generation--he and Nalbandian are the ultimate "what if" players in that both could/should have been better than their actual career results. But we can't say that what (we think) he "should" have done is how great he was, or to the point here, where he should exist on a list of ranking two-Slam winners. In the end, peak potential has to be balanced with actual results. Meaning, greatness is also about how a player translates their talent into actual match wins and trophies.

But if we were making a lot of "most talented two Slam winners," I think you can argue that Safin would be #1.

I do think the question of underachievement and just pure talent is fun to talk about, but it isn't the same thing as overall greatness. And even when incorporating peak level, I think it is better to consider, say, "best year" and/or "best three years," because at least a full year requires some consistency from a player.

When compiling lists of "best of X group," it pretty much has to come down to actual accomplishments. Not only is "what should have been" highly subjective, but veering too far in that direction is unfair to the players who actually maximized their ability, or come closer to it.

Otherwise, I mean, we'd be left with David Nalbandian as the GOAT .

I'd put Xavier Malisse as a what-if, underachieving player of that generation instead of Safin. At least Safin accomplished something. Yes, he did not maximize his talent, but he still made the Hall of Fame. Malisse, on the other hand, was highly hyped and completely wasted his talent, never reaching the Top 10 (even Nalbandian accomplished that).

To me, the biggest underachievers argument starts with Kygrios and Malisse, then we go from there. As a Hall of Famer, Safin really feels out of place in that discussion, especially when you have many players that had the talent and didn't even carve out half of his accomplishments. Go ahead and argue Marcelo Rios or Nalbandian, Kygrios or Malisse, etc. But let's not put Safin in this discussion. If anything, he's a bridge player, like Hewitt, who were both good from about 2000-05, until Nadal broke out (at which point both players swiftly declined).

Side note: I sometimes think Nalbandian's talent was overrated. Yes, he wasted his talent, but it was clear to me (by at least mid-2003) that he was never going to be an all-time great. It should have been obvious in early 2005, when he got passed by Nadal. Still, he should have been able to carve out a Wawrinka-like career (and get to Federer/Nadal at least a couple of times), but it should have been clear in 2004 or 05 that he was never going dominate consistently like Federer and Nadal. I just didn't expect him to be another one-slam final wonder.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I predicted it, brother. I predicted it on the forums too. I told the missus, we’re heading to New York, and we watched Pete beat Andy in the QF, and had our tickets already for the Final. Yes, it’s a fluke also because there’s no way I’d guess the exact final, but I did. I wish I was a gambler, but I’m not.

I watched the semis on a big screen outside the Rockerfeller Center. I’d followed Pete’s progress across the North American swing and he was still losing, but he was losing close matches. But the icing on the cake was that he faced Rusedski in round 2 of the USO. Myself and the missus listened to it on BBC Radio 5-live, in the middle of the night. That was a close match too, but he was never going to lose to the nouveau Brit. That match brought the old Pete back to unbeatable form. By the way, listening to tennis on the radio is a great experience, depending on the commentators.

We flew out straight after staying up all night listening to the Tommy Haas match, in round four, which was his first big victory in a while…

Yes Sir that clown Rudedski pissed Pete off and if I recall Greg tried to poo poo Pete's game at the stage of his career. Pete got the last laugh

 

[El Dude]

I'd put Xavier Malisse as a what-if, underachieving player of that generation instead of Safin. At least Safin accomplished something. Yes, he did not maximize his talent, but he still made the Hall of Fame. Malisse, on the other hand, was highly hyped and completely wasted his talent, never reaching the Top 10 (even Nalbandian accomplished that).

To me, the biggest underachievers argument starts with Kygrios and Malisse, then we go from there. As a Hall of Famer, Safin really feels out of place in that discussion, especially when you have many players that had the talent and didn't even carve out half of his accomplishments. Go ahead and argue Marcelo Rios or Nalbandian, Kygrios or Malisse, etc. But let's not put Safin in this discussion. If anything, he's a bridge player, like Hewitt, who were both good from about 2000-05, until Nadal broke out (at which point both players swiftly declined).

Side note: I sometimes think Nalbandian's talent was overrated. Yes, he wasted his talent, but it was clear to me (by at least mid-2003) that he was never going to be an all-time great. It should have been obvious in early 2005, when he got passed by Nadal. Still, he should have been able to carve out a Wawrinka-like career (and get to Federer/Nadal at least a couple of times), but it should have been clear in 2004 or 05 that he was never going dominate consistently like Federer and Nadal. I just didn't expect him to be another one-slam final wonder.

I hear you, though I think there are different kinds and degrees of underachievement. Safin had a really good career, but I think he had the ability to at least be an Edberg/Becker. And yes, I'd say Nalbandian is a "worse" case in that he had similar pure ability, but didn't even manage a Slam.

But whether we're talking about Slamless players who "should" have won a Slam(s), or Slam-winning players that could have accomplished more, both are underachievers, even if the latter still accomplished enough to get into the Hall of Fame. Recognizing that Safin had the talent for an even better career isn't saying that he didn't accomplish anything, or that he didn't have a very good career. Rather, it is saying that he really ought to have been even better (as far as the record books go).

With Malisse, there's also a quality of hype confusing talent. Obviously he was very talented, but the hype may cloud that a bit. I was a very casual fan when he came up, so don't remember the hype train on him, but I'm wondering if that was at least partially the case. Gasquet is a similar case, or even Grigor "Baby Federer" Dimitrov or FAA. All of these players coulda, shoulda accomplished more, but I think with all of them, there were actual deficiencies in their game that either were never ironed out or simply became larger as the years went by.

And now we have Fonseca. I think the hype is justified, but he's also got some deficiencies that he needs to address. It may be that he "only" ends up being another Zverev or Medvedev, or "merely" an Andy Murray type to Sincaraz. All but maybe 15 players would kill to have Andy Murray's career, and all but maybe 20 or 25 would love to have Zverev's or Medvedev's. It can be a bit tricky trying to unpack hype in terms of what is justified and represents actual talent what ends up being a bubble that inevitably bursts.

 

[lomaha]

Denmark is playing against Bulgaria in Davis Cup this weekend. And a long awaited comeback for Holger Rune. He will play the 2nd match today and will play Dimitrov tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what shape he is in after the long break.

 

[Fiero425]

Denmark is playing against Bulgaria in Davis Cup this weekend. And a long awaited comeback for Holger Rune. He will play the 2nd match today and will play Dimitrov tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what shape he is in after the long break.

I guess few really care about DC! The US's play Czechia & we're 1-1; Shelton lost to Lehečka, but Tien defeated Menšík! Shelton, Shelton, Shelton! ;-)

 

[the AntiPusher]

I hear that Sinner may be partnering with JCF. I would have thought that Felix who desperately needs a couch or Sheldon who needs to add to his father's team a technical coach with a different strategy to solve the Sascha, Sinner and still Carlos riddle.

 

[mrzz]

João Fonseca just won his rubber against Switzerland (Stricker), 4x6 6x3 6x2. He is still faaaaaaaaar from his best, but he managed it all decently. What was surprising to see is that he broke to tears literally one second after the match was finished.

In other news, @El Dude , add one Brazilian kid to your young guns watch: Livas Damazio, 16 years old (will be 17 in January). The owner of the tennis academy I train in, who for years coached professionaly, was part of Guga's team and etc, saw this kid recently in a local tournament, and was deeply impressed. I heard other people saying the same. Just a few ATP points just yet, will probably amass a few this week playing a local IFT M15 (in the quarters already).

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think people commonly equate peak level--which is often based upon a specific match or series of matches and ultimately remembered impressions--with overall greatness. I think peak level is an aspect of greatness, but not the only factor.

Someone like Safin is viewed as an underachiever in that he showed the ability to accomplish more than he actually did. Of Roger's generation---and really, an generation--he and Nalbandian are the ultimate "what if" players in that both could/should have been better than their actual career results. But we can't say that what (we think) he "should" have done is how great he was, or to the point here, where he should exist on a list of ranking two-Slam winners. In the end, peak potential has to be balanced with actual results. Meaning, greatness is also about how a player translates their talent into actual match wins and trophies.

But if we were making a lot of "most talented two Slam winners," I think you can argue that Safin would be #1.

I do think the question of underachievement and just pure talent is fun to talk about, but it isn't the same thing as overall greatness. And even when incorporating peak level, I think it is better to consider, say, "best year" and/or "best three years," because at least a full year requires some consistency from a player.

When compiling lists of "best of X group," it pretty much has to come down to actual accomplishments. Not only is "what should have been" highly subjective, but veering too far in that direction is unfair to the players who actually maximized their ability, or come closer to it.

Otherwise, I mean, we'd be left with David Nalbandian as the GOAT .

El Dude Safin is much more accomplished than Nalbandian , Is this Correct. Two Slams should get you in the Tennis HOF is the new criteria?

 

[10isfan]

Sinner hiring JCF is a no brainer. He would get tips on beating Alcaraz.

 

[britbox]

Sinner hiring JCF is a no brainer. He would get tips on beating Alcaraz.

Has that been formalised?