Sincaraz = Fedal II?

[El Dude]

OK, don't get your panties in a wad. I'm not saying that Sincaraz are as good as Fedal, nor am I saying that their rivalry will be anything similar. But there are some rather striking similarities that I found, through my statistical nerdery wizardry. Specifically, through my "career shapes" -- and thus as illustrating their patterns of development.

Compare Carlos and Rafa through the year they turned 21 (2007 for Rafa, 2024 for Carlos):

For both, they blossomed early at age 18-19, then basically consolidated for a few years. Carlos has the extra Slam, but Rafa has more Masters. This, I think, illustrates a crucial difference that the above chart only hints at: Rafa was enormously dominant on clay, but not nearly so much off the dirt. Carlos is both more well-rounded at a similar age, but not nearly as "surface dominant" as Rafa was.

Now compare Jannik and Roger through the year they turned age 23 (2024 for Jannik, 2004 for Roger):

One notable difference is that Roger's 2004 was significantly better than Jannik's 2024, but it isn't by a huge margin - especially if Jannik does well at the remaining tournaments.

Overall Rafa and Roger were slightly better than Carlos and Jannik have been, respectively. But the shape of both pairs are almost exactly the same - which is what I find so striking - and really, the young 'uns aren't far off.

The two pairs were also born in similar times of year: Carlos and Rafa about a month apart, and Roger and Jannik just eight days apart (both Leos).

Now chances are we'll see things diverge, especially because unlike Fedal, they're closer in age (less than two years apart) and also in terms of development. But one thing I do see as being similar going forward: Jannik won't get much better, while we haven't yet seen all that Carlos is capable of. It could be that, like Rafa in 2008, he finds a new level in 2025.

Meaning, while Jannik might polish this or that, it will mostly be micro-differences and not really reflect much on his overall accomplishments. But I do think Carlos has another level that we haven't seen yet, mainly due to his inconsistency the last few years. There's a sense that he hasn't yet put it all together, which is a scary thought.

Roger's 2004 season depicted above was the first of his absolute peak. I think he actually continued to improve for the next couple years, with his absolute peak in 2006, but overall his level was similar in 2004-07. I suspect we'll see a similar pattern from Jannik...maybe some oscillation, but he won't make another jump.

 

[Moxie]

It takes a bit of time to digest your graphs and I can't right now, but I think I get the overall point.

I also tend to agree with you that Sinner is mostly at his best level, and Alcaraz has room to grow.

Now, if Holger Rune could only get his head together and make himself a proper rival, too!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It takes a bit of time to digest your graphs and I can't right now, but I think I get the overall point.

I also tend to agree with you that Sinner is mostly at his best level, and Alcaraz has room to grow.

Now, if Holger Rune could only get his head together and make himself a proper rival, too!

Quite frankly Moxie if Rune dosent get his act together, I cant see him being a rival which is a shame, I know he has had his injuries, and too many coaching changes in my opinion.Maybe Rune is a player that will mature more as he gets older, there are still a lot of areas in his game he needs to improve. I feel 2025 will give us a better indication where his level is, , this season has been very disappointing to say the least.

 

[El Dude]

It takes a bit of time to digest your graphs and I can't right now, but I think I get the overall point.

I also tend to agree with you that Sinner is mostly at his best level, and Alcaraz has room to grow.

Now, if Holger Rune could only get his head together and make himself a proper rival, too!

The biggest thing is the visual...you don't need to know what the numbers mean, but that they represent their careers through the same point (for the pairs) - and how similar they are.

But the magenta is basically overall results in all tournaments, the blue is the quality of play, and the green are titles won, with different sizes for different levels. Big titles have names, smaller ones don't. Bold means they led the tour.

I'm starting to give up on Holger, to be honest. I mean, if he's going to be the third of a new Big Three, I want to see it no later than 2025.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The biggest thing is the visual...you don't need to know what the numbers mean, but that they represent their careers through the same point (for the pairs) - and how similar they are.

But the magenta is basically overall results in all tournaments, the blue is the quality of play, and the green are titles won, with different sizes for different levels. Big titles have names, smaller ones don't. Bold means they led the tour.

I'm starting to give up on Holger, to be honest. I mean, if he's going to be the third of a new Big Three, I want to see it no later than 2025.

I agree with you 100% regarding Rune, 2025 will be a 'telling year' for him, this year has been a major disappointment..

 

[Moxie]

The biggest thing is the visual...you don't need to know what the numbers mean, but that they represent their careers through the same point (for the pairs) - and how similar they are.

But the magenta is basically overall results in all tournaments, the blue is the quality of play, and the green are titles won, with different sizes for different levels. Big titles have names, smaller ones don't. Bold means they led the tour.

I'm starting to give up on Holger, to be honest. I mean, if he's going to be the third of a new Big Three, I want to see it no later than 2025.

Now that you give me permission to just look at the shape, it helps. Will look again tomorrow, though.

I know what you're saying about Rune, but I'm still trying to keep the faith. However, and because I've been thinking about @Jelenafan's thread about who we once thought had a Major in their future, I honestly think he's in danger of falling into Shapovalov territory, meaning undisciplined irrelevance. IMO, if he gets to a place where he's swimming regularly in the big boy pool like Zverev and Tsitsipas, he's got the cojones to seal the deal, which they don't. But first he has to keep himself in regular contention. He's only 21, but he's got a bit physical and mental hurtle to get over, and yes, I think he needs to show he's up there by next year.

 

[El Dude]

Now that you give me permission to just look at the shape, it helps. Will look again tomorrow, though.

I know what you're saying about Rune, but I'm still trying to keep the faith. However, and because I've been thinking about @Jelenafan's thread about who we once thought had a Major in their future, I honestly think he's in danger of falling into Shapovalov territory, meaning undisciplined irrelevance. IMO, if he gets to a place where he's swimming regularly in the big boy pool like Zverev and Tsitsipas, he's got the cojones to seal the deal, which they don't. But first he has to keep himself in regular contention. He's only 21, but he's got a bit physical and mental hurtle to get over, and yes, I think he needs to show he's up there by next year.

Yeah, I totally agree - and in that sense, I could see him being a less pussified Tsitsipas. Haha.

Plus, he's a significantly better player than Shapovalov ever was. I think we got excited about Shapo because A) he beat Rafa in a Masters (I think) seemingly out of nowhere at 18 years old, and B) it was still back when the prospect pool were rather empty. That was 2017 and before Zverev won his first two Masters, meaning Next Gen hadn't really blossomed yet so we were still ailing from the disappointments of Lost Gen. In other words, we were still waiting for the "next thing."

But I think Holger in 2022-23 was much better than Shapovalov ever was. Shapo had his moments of semi-brilliance, but I think we've seen more from Holger, with a bigger game. Shapo always seemed a bit like smoke and mirrors - some flash, but not much substance. A bit Dolgo-esque, if less fun to watch. But I think the "undisciplined irrelevance" is an apt phrase for both...or Holger's potential fate, at least.

Anyhow, I still think Holger has a good chance of being really good, maybe even win a Slam or three (the Tsitsipas comment above). I just think the ship is rapidly departing on greatness...and that might be partially my fault in going all-in on him a year or two ago, and just not seeing any real improvement over the last two years, but instead stagnation and even decline. I think the potential is still there, though.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I totally agree - and in that sense, I could see him being a less pussified Tsitsipas. Haha.

Plus, he's a significantly better player than Shapovalov ever was. I think we got excited about Shapo because A) he beat Rafa in a Masters (I think) seemingly out of nowhere at 18 years old, and B) it was still back when the prospect pool were rather empty. That was 2017 and before Zverev won his first two Masters, meaning Next Gen hadn't really blossomed yet so we were still ailing from the disappointments of Lost Gen. In other words, we were still waiting for the "next thing."

But I think Holger in 2022-23 was much better than Shapovalov ever was. Shapo had his moments of semi-brilliance, but I think we've seen more from Holger, with a bigger game. Shapo always seemed a bit like smoke and mirrors - some flash, but not much substance. A bit Dolgo-esque, if less fun to watch. But I think the "undisciplined irrelevance" is an apt phrase for both...or Holger's potential fate, at least.

Anyhow, I still think Holger has a good chance of being really good, maybe even win a Slam or three (the Tsitsipas comment above). I just think the ship is rapidly departing on greatness...and that might be partially my fault in going all-in on him a year or two ago, and just not seeing any real improvement over the last two years, but instead stagnation and even decline. I think the potential is still there, though.

I also think we have to stop focusing on "greatness." In a very serious way. Our sights have been set too high for too long. I don't necessarily need Holger to be especially great. I'd like him to make an excellent foil to Sinner and Alcaraz, though, for a start, so we could see some excellent and thrilling tennis in our futures.

Think of the matches we've cited recently (most recently, on the recent thread about Nadal's retirement for obvious reasons.) What do you need for a match to be great, and thrilling? An actual threat. The threat of danger. The thing I like about Rune is that he has the spit and vinegar to be dangerous, if he lives up to potential. An opposite example comes from our friend, @Kieran, who, of the Djokovic d. Tsitsipas RG final 2021, after Tsitsipas was up 2 sets to love, said he told the missus, (and I believe him,) "Nah, the match is only just getting started." And he was right. Why? Because Tsitsipas is not sufficiently dangerous. Rune has the potential to be, and I hope he makes good on it. Because I don't see him content to swan around the middle of the top 10, and making himself popular on Instagram. IMO, if he could be as consistent as Zverev and Tsitsipas, he'd also break through. He's hungrier than they are. Otherwise, I think he is in danger of "undisciplined irrelevance." He will make or break soon, I think.

 

[Kieran]

I’m an Alcasin man meself but this rivalry has been good from the start, with Sinner as an excellent straight man to Carlos dips and highs. Sinner is like a lot of great baseline guards, he isn’t flashy or daring, he could be described as being dull, without the charisma of a Borg or the shadiness of Djokovic, the darkness too, but Sinner seems the opposite of his name: he looks like a mammy’s boy just come from school to play.

Carlos meanwhile has an Elvis curl on his lip, he crackles with Spanish energy, and though he’s as gifted as Federer, he smiles when he does ridiculous things, and even when his opponent does. Roger was intense, and cruel.

Neither of these two players are the most gifted player I’ve seen, by the way.




I think as a top grade rivalry, this one has potential. If Carlos can get sensible about scheduling however, and not do stupid things like the Olympics and the Laver Cup, for instance, it also has the potential to become very one-sided. If Jannik faces time off court for the drug bust, which he may get, then his career is always going to be tainted by it, unfairly in my opinion. He may struggle. Agassi ought to have been consigned to history if the authorities did the right thing and banned him when he failed a dope test, but they didn’t. The authorities are arbitrary on these things.

Let’s be clear, Carlos is the much better player and has more potential than almost anyone I’ve seen. He’s tough too, and even at times inspired, in a dogfight. If he turns up really ready for it, he might complete a career slam at the age of 21. And it’ll seem like it’s not so great an achievement, given his good he is.

I’m writing off Holger. Liked him, don’t like him. The vicious character that was hated has been neutered. It’s seldom a player gets that back. Medvedev? Almost gone. He might get Zverev in a bizarre twist GS final and he’ll win one more. Tsitsipas? Should identify as a Democrat and play WTA. Zverev? If he reached a GS final and his opponent overslept and missed it, Zed would still come last.

Sinner is an honest scrapper, and he’s committed to improving too, hence his late arrival to the big finals. Big match temperament. We’ll see what next year brings, and isn’t it really good to say that about players that aren’t Big 3?

 

[El Dude]

I also think we have to stop focusing on "greatness." In a very serious way. Our sights have been set too high for too long. I don't necessarily need Holger to be especially great. I'd like him to make an excellent foil to Sinner and Alcaraz, though, for a start, so we could see some excellent and thrilling tennis in our futures.

Think of the matches we've cited recently (most recently, on the recent thread about Nadal's retirement for obvious reasons.) What do you need for a match to be great, and thrilling? An actual threat. The threat of danger. The thing I like about Rune is that he has the spit and vinegar to be dangerous, if he lives up to potential. An opposite example comes from our friend, @Kieran, who, of the Djokovic d. Tsitsipas RG final 2021, after Tsitsipas was up 2 sets to love, said he told the missus, (and I believe him,) "Nah, the match is only just getting started." And he was right. Why? Because Tsitsipas is not sufficiently dangerous. Rune has the potential to be, and I hope he makes good on it. Because I don't see him content to swan around the middle of the top 10, and making himself popular on Instagram. IMO, if he could be as consistent as Zverev and Tsitsipas, he'd also break through. He's hungrier than they are. Otherwise, I think he is in danger of "undisciplined irrelevance." He will make or break soon, I think.

Yes, I hear you about greatness. As you might have noticed, I like to pick on Fiero when he's going after this or that guy for not being prime Borg or Federer. As I said in another thread with regards to Medvedev, there have only been about 15 truly great players in the Open Era...so not being one of them isn't exactly a slight. And of course only a handful of guys have ever been as good as Borg circa 78-80.

But thankfully we do have (probably) two young greats early in their runs. And we don't know how good they'll get, or how their careers will unfold. Ten years from now they could share 30 Slams, or "only" 15.

As for Holger, one thing I like about the recent era (say, starting in 2017 but especially 2020 and on) is that unlike much of the previous decade, it isn't the top dogs and then a huge gap to everyone else ("second tier"). Now we have both two young greats and the usual bunch of Berdych-esque second tier guys (Rublev, Ruud, Hurkacz, etc), but then a few guys in-between - namely, Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas sorta, Thiem for a few years and, who knows, maybe Holger will round into this category. For most of the Big Four era there was those four, then a huge gap from Andy Murray to...David Ferrer? Del Potro when healthy? Stan for a hot minute?

As I write this I realize that there were guys that filled the gap for a bit, but I think the "slope" is less sharp. Maybe that will change if Jannik and Carlos get much better, but I'd like to see a more gradual gradation - or at least guys who can be dangerous - like you say about Holger.

That was one of the things that was fun about Nick Kyrgios (aside from the antics). For the most part he was more of a third tier guy, but he played like an elite when he faced the top guys. I think Holger takes his tennis a bit more seriously so should be more consistent, but I think that like Kyrgios he has elite talent that hopefully he'll be able to muster at times, even if almost certainly less consistently than the "Big Two."

 

[atttomole]

It takes a bit of time to digest your graphs and I can't right now, but I think I get the overall point.

I also tend to agree with you that Sinner is mostly at his best level, and Alcaraz has room to grow.

Now, if Holger Rune could only get his head together and make himself a proper rival, too!

Rune is going nowhere. He will always be a nearly man.

 

[atttomole]

It is a good name for the rivalry!!

 

[El Dude]

It is a good name for the rivalry!!

I've also seen Alcasin, but that sounds too much like a pharmaceutical.

 

[Kieran]

I've also seen Alcasin, but that sounds too much like a pharmaceutical.

Well I say Alcasin because although he’s the younger man, Alcaraz is the senior partner in that rivalry, just as Roger was when Fedal became a thing.

But you’re right, it does sound a tad pharmaceutical. That was so Sinner doesn’t feel left out..

 

[El Dude]

Well I say Alcasin because although he’s the younger man, Alcaraz is the senior partner in that rivalry, just as Roger was when Fedal became a thing.

But you’re right, it does sound a tad pharmaceutical. That was so Sinner doesn’t feel left out..

Alasinner sounds even more...medicinal? Sinneraz? Too Sinner dominant. I guess I like Alcaraz...if we must, but we don't have to

 

[tented]

Alasinner sounds even more...medicinal? Sinneraz? Too Sinner dominant. I guess I like Alcaraz...if we must, but we don't have to

The name “Sinner” is the problem, because it‘s an echo of “sin” — never a good thing. On the other hand, when trying to reduce the name “Alcaraz” it sounds like Alka-Seltzer. I’ve yet to see a successful combination of their names which doesn’t seem awkward.

 

[Kieran]

Alasinner sounds even more...medicinal? Sinneraz? Too Sinner dominant. I guess I like Alcaraz...if we must, but we don't have to

The name “Sinner” is the problem, because it‘s an echo of “sin” — never a good thing. On the other hand, when trying to reduce the name “Alcaraz” it sounds like Alka-Seltzer. I’ve yet to see a successful combination of their names which doesn’t seem awkward.

Salkaseltzer?

 

[Moxie]

Sincaraz seems to work the best, but just to add an issue: "Sin" in Spanish means "without." Therefore, "Sin-caraz" implies "without Alcaraz" in Spanish. Bad juju.

I don't think "Alcasin" is too pharmaceutical, but what about "Alcasino." It embraces both of their Latinate cultures, AND addresses the new betting culture in tennis.

 

[Kieran]

what about "Alcasino."

 

[mrzz]

Carnik