Young Players and Historical Precedents

[El Dude]

@Moxie , I started replying in the Alcaraz vs. Ruud thread, but as my post got longer I decided to just start a new thread. I'll try to get a post together about the young guys and how they look, in terms of historical precedents and such, but for now thought I'd share some thoughts, without the stats.

One tricky element when considering how young guys match up historically speaking, is factoring in stuff that is unique to today's era, and how it differs from previous eras. Tennis is always evolving, and along with it the tech, medical science, and other factors. As a mutual favorite poster pointed out to me via PM, there are advantages that the very top players have that most players don't. That has always been the case, but is more true now than ever before (think of Novak's Multi-sonic Hyper-baric, Samadhi-Inducing Meditation Chambers...or whatever he has ).

I imagine that any player that reaches the top 100 or so has some degree of resources, perhaps enough so that in the end it comes down to their talent and perhaps a bit of luck. But I still think those hidden factors - a lot of which boil down to money - may muddy the waters to a significant degree.

Meaning, I can't factor those things into any sort of analysis, so they have to be an attached caveat emptor: the precedents of the past might no longer be valid in the present and future, because the conditions of tennis even just 15 years ago were different; more so the further back we go.

Anyhow, as far as the young players and how they match up to historical precedents, obviously Alcaraz stands head and shoulders above the rest. And really, without looking at the numbers--which I may do in follow-up post in the next day or two--he's the only guy who can still reach those benchmarks of all-time greatness. Actually, he's met all of them at age 19...some benchmarks (like the #1 ranking) that aren't met by some ATGs until half a decade later (a few guys, like Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, and Djokovic, didn't reach #1 until they were 24). And I believe he's met all of them at an earlier age than anyone ever has (Rafa met most of them at the same age or younger, but didn't reach #1 until he was 22). Crazy stuff.

I'll have to check, but I believe that Holger Rune and Jannik Sinner are the only other guys--at least among those in or near the top 100--that still has a chance to reach the benchmarks. All the other guys have the benchmarks of, at best, lesser greats or perennial top 10 types, but not ATGs. Meaning, the ship has sailed for almost all of them - except Alcaraz, Sinner, and Rune.

Meaning, as of this writing, Alcaraz is the only one who looks to be a probable all-time great. Every other young player projects to be a lesser great (i.e. 2-3 Slam winner) at best. Sinner has to reach some significant benchmarks in the next year, before he turns 22 next August, like a big title and top 5 ranking; and Rune has a lot ahead of him, but more time to reach them.

But again, old precedents can be broken. But there's also a reason why they tend to stand the test of time. A year ago it looked like Daniil Medvedev had a significant chance to break some precedents and be a late-blooming ATG, but that seems much less likely now. I still think he has a good chance at another Slam or two, but with Alcaraz's emergence and a broader second tier field, it is hard to imagine him winning 5+ more Slams, with only one Slam to go before his 27th birthday.

More to come...

 

[Moxie]

Dude, I appreciate your taking up the gauntlet which I pretty much did lay down for you. You have said in more than one post, comparing eras, that the all-time great potential starts with winning a Major somewhere by 20-22. Finally we have some hope with Alcaraz. And, given the weirdness of the ranking system, perhaps, he's also #1 at 19. Suddenly, it looks like someone comes up to make a run at not just Majors records, but weeks at #1, if he gets to start so young. But not to get ahead of myself. I'll be curious as to your further take on what we make of the rising youngsters, and the suddenly not-so-rising Next Gen players. Interesting times.

 

[El Dude]

One striking thing about Alcaraz is that he's doing things a bit old school: winning at an age that only Rafa has done, and some of the ATGs from past generations. Even Novak wasn't as successful at such an early age: he won his first Slam at 20, and reached #1 at 24. Roger reached all of the benchmarks by age 22, but didn't enter the top 10 until age 20.

Alcaraz has reached every "Benchmark of Future Greatness" while still a teenager, something no player has ever done. We could asterisk his #1 ranking, but his early pace so far is still comparable to players like Nadal and Sampras.

OK, here's a quick reminder of my "Benchmarks of Greatness" lens:

Benchmarks of Greatness
Age 18 (before turning 19): Top 100 ranking
Age 19: Top 50 ranking
Age 20: Top 20 and 10 ranking, first title, Slam QF
Age 21: Top 5 ranking, First big title
Age 24: #1 ranking, Grand Slam title

As you can see, most of that is quite young - with 8 of 10 benchmarks before turning 22. The age 24 benchmarks are the hardest to reach, and thus the most rare - but also give promising young players a bit of breathing room.

Those benchmarks have been reached by every ATG in the Open Era, which I am defining as a player who won at least 6 Slams, so: Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic (I'm excluding tweeners like Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, and John Newcombe, because of the different nature of the pre-Open Era tours, both pro and amateur, and most notably the alck of rankings; even Connors and Borg's top 100 ranking are hypothetical and both would have entered before the ATP rankings began in 1973, but both would have been in the top 100 before turning 19 - and Borg as a 16 year old).

Meaning, those benchmarks are the oldest an ATG has been when they reached it. Or to put it another way, no player that has reached one of those benchmarks at an older age went on to win 6+ Slams.

Now there are a very small number of players who reached those benchmarks, but didn't become ATGs: Jim Courier, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick. That's it. Oh, and now Carlos Alcaraz. Courier is what I would call a "lesser great": A multi-Slam winner and number one player, but not a true ATG. For awhile there he looked like he was well on his way, but then dropped off. Interestingly, the other three are all from the same era, and thus all peers of Federer and, to a lesser degree, Nadal.

There are also many other players who reached some or all of the early benchmarks, but never reached #1. A recent example is Juan Martin Del Potro, who reached 9 of 10 benchmarks but never #1. Michael Chang was a very promising player as a teenager, meeting 9 of 10 benchmarks before turning 18 years old--a feat he shares with only Boris Becker--but like Del Potro, he also never reached #1 or won more than one Slam (although had a much better career than Del Potro, winning multiple Masters).

There are also players who looked very promising early on, reaching most benchmarks at an early age, but never won a Slam: like Jimmy Arias and Andrei Medvedev, among others.

And then you have players like Andy Murray, who only missed the early benchmarks by one: not reaching his first GS until age 21. Murray would also not meet the later benchmarks until after turning 25: his first Slam at 25, and the #1 ranking at an aged 29.

TLDR: The benchmarks represent early career accomplishments that every Open Era All-Time Great (ATG), or 6+ Slam winner, has met. Furthermore, of the 16 players who reached every benchmark, 12 (or 75%) went on to become ATGs.

The Benchmarks and the Lost (b. 1989-93), Next (b. 1994-98), and Millenial Gens (b. 1999-2003)

After Del Potro, no player came close to reaching the benchmarks for several years. Among Lost Gen, only Donald Young, Kei Nishikori, and Bernard Tomic reached the first benchmark. Even Grigor Dimitrov didn't reach the top 100 until shortly after his 19th birthday, and failed at meeting every other benchmark. And Lost Gen's lone Slam winner, Dominic Thiem (who was arguably Next Gen, born in September of 1993) didn't reach the top 100 until he was 20 and failed to meet any of the benchmarks at the requisite age, even if he eventually reached all by the #1.

The first Next Genner by chronological birth year to make the first benchmark was Borna Coric, who entered the top 100 at age 17 (Nick Kyrgios just missed the cut, shortly after turning 19). Coric reached the top 50 at age 18, but then stalled.

And then we come to a pair of players who may forever be linked, as two of the best players of Next Gen, but also seeming underachievers: Alexander Zverev and Stefanos Tsitsipas. Zverev reached every benchmark except the last two, which he missed when he turned 25 in April. Tsitsipas is interesting because he actually missed the first benchmark by a few weeks, but has reached every one since, and has until next August to reach the final two benchmarks (GS title and #1 ranking).

A couple other Next Genners reached the first benchmark but fell off after: Frances Tiafoe and Taylor Fritz, both of whom entered the top 100 by age 18. But again, this isn't a rare feat - I don't know the exact number, but about a hundred players (give or take a dozen or two) have reached it during the Open Era.

Other top 10 Next Genners like Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berretini, Karen Khachanov, and Hubert Hurkacz all missed the first benchmark, and most after.

The Millenial Gen actually has five players who have met the first benchmark: Denis Shapovalov, Felix Auger-Aliassime, Jannik Sinner, Holger Rune, and Carlos Alcaraz. Both Shapo and FAA have missed later benchmarks.

As noted, Alcaraz has reached all ten benchmarks - only the 17th player in Open Era history to do so. Sinner has reached six of ten, and has less than a year to reach two more: his first big title and top 5 ranking. He's been ranked as high as #9 and not only won an ATP 500 but one Masters Final, so seems like a good bet to reach those two. And then he'll have a few more years to win his first Slam and reach #1, so has a decent chance of meeting all of the benchmarks.

For Rune, it is early. He entered the top 100 at age 18, the top 50 and also his first title and Slam QF at age 19. He doesn't turn 20 until next April, so has time to reach the next two on the clock: a top 20 and top 10 ranking (he's ranked as high as #26).

Right now, Alcaraz and Rune are the only teenagers in the top 100. The highest ranked player under 19 is Juncheng Shang (age 17), currently #196 in the live rankings. And then you have a handful of 17 and 18 year olds in the 300-500 range, but it is really way too early to consider any of these guys as candidates for the top 100 before turning 19, considering how many players stall out before then.

Summary
In Open Era history, there have been 17 players who reached every benchmark of greatness, 12 of whom became ATGs, 4 of whom between lesser greats or elite players, and one of whom--Carlos Alcaraz--is to be determined. Jannik Sinner has a good chance--though far from guaranteed--of becoming the 18th player. It is too soon to tell on Holger Rune.

Another angle I'll look into in the coming days is how many players who reach the first six or eight benchmarks (those through age 20 and 21, respectively) go on to A) meet all ten benchmarks, and B) Become ATGs. That will give us a better sense of Sinner's and Rune's chance of ATGness at the present moment, at least relative to historical precedents.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I wonder if Djokovic will ever manage to score a win over Alcaraz. I could see the rivalry ending something like 5-0 in favor of Alcaraz...

 

[El Dude]

I wonder if Djokovic will ever manage to score a win over Alcaraz. I could see the rivalry ending something like 5-0 in favor of Alcaraz...

I’m honestly curious: Are you capable of posting something without either drooling over Nadal or bashing Djokovic or Federer?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I’m honestly curious: Are you capable of posting something without either drooling over Nadal or bashing Djokovic or Federer?

That's mainly a compliment to Alcaraz. And stop being a crybaby about Djokovic, this is far from "bashing"...

I'm simply looking forward to their next meetings and the pressure will definitely be on Djokovic to score a win over the new prince of tennis. I don't think he will be able to do it.

Meanwhile some of your recent post mentioning Nadal:

The Rankings Thread (ATP)

What are the chances that Nadal reclaims the no.1 spot in the upcoming months and finishes the year at no.1? I think Medvedev for example has a lot more points to defend? Who else can stand in his way?

www.tennisfrontier.com

Novak Djokovic's Vaccine Stance & Visa Troubles

Novaks legal documents state he tested positive on December 16, and this was the basis of his application for exemption. This begs the question, was he going to withdraw if he hasn’t tested positive? Did he catch covid deliberately, thinking this would get him to Australia...

www.tennisfrontier.com

 

[El Dude]

That's mainly a compliment to Alcaraz. And stop being a crybaby about Djokovic, this is far from "bashing"...

I'm simply looking forward to their next meetings and the pressure will definitely be on Djokovic to score a win over the new prince of tennis. I don't think he will be able to do it.

Meanwhile some of your recent post mentioning Nadal:

The Rankings Thread (ATP)

What are the chances that Nadal reclaims the no.1 spot in the upcoming months and finishes the year at no.1? I think Medvedev for example has a lot more points to defend? Who else can stand in his way?

www.tennisfrontier.com

Novak Djokovic's Vaccine Stance & Visa Troubles

Novaks legal documents state he tested positive on December 16, and this was the basis of his application for exemption. This begs the question, was he going to withdraw if he hasn’t tested positive? Did he catch covid deliberately, thinking this would get him to Australia...

www.tennisfrontier.com

Yes, those were jokes.

Just keep the Big Three Wars out of this thread. Say something substantive. That's all I ask.

 

[Moxie]

There is a lot in your 2nd post above, so I'll just touch on a few things. Excellent post!

One striking thing about Alcaraz is that he's doing things a bit old school: winning at an age that only Rafa has done, and some of the ATGs from past generations. Even Novak wasn't as successful at such an early age: he won his first Slam at 20, and reached #1 at 24. Roger reached all of the benchmarks by age 22, but didn't enter the top 10 until age 20.

Alcaraz has reached every "Benchmark of Future Greatness" while still a teenager, something no player has ever done. We could asterisk his #1 ranking, but his early pace so far is still comparable to players like Nadal and Sampras.

I didn't mean to imply "asterisk" on Alcaraz's #1 in my above. There are too many variables on how rankings might have gone, if the world were "normal" in the past 2.5 years, so we just have to let it go and be what it is. Some players to get more of a leg-up at #1. Roger became #1 when they were handing it out like candy. But keeping it for 4.5 years was all him. Rafa had to win 5 Majors before getting to #1 (see: Federer, Roger.) What Carlos does with his benefit will be on him, too.

Now there are a very small number of players who reached those benchmarks, but didn't become ATGs: Jim Courier, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick. That's it. Oh, and now Carlos Alcaraz. Courier is what I would call a "lesser great": A multi-Slam winner and number one player, but not a true ATG. For awhile there he looked like he was well on his way, but then dropped off. Interestingly, the other three are all from the same era, and thus all peers of Federer and, to a lesser degree, Nadal.

You say that Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are peers "to a lesser degree" of Nadal, but interestedly, Djokovic played each a similar amount of times, for the most part. I have no real point here, other than that it surprised me. Rafa is 16-5 over the 3, Novak 6-12. Makes sense, as Novak flowered later, but interesting how Novak did play those 3 nearly as much. Also a small point, Safin beat Novak on his way to winning the 2005 Australian Open. Novak was 17.

The Benchmarks and the Lost (b. 1989-93), Next (b. 1994-98), and Millenial Gens (b. 1999-2003)

After Del Potro, no player came close to reaching the benchmarks for several years. Among Lost Gen, only Donald Young, Kei Nishikori, and Bernard Tomic reached the first benchmark. Even Grigor Dimitrov didn't reach the top 100 until shortly after his 19th birthday, and failed at meeting every other benchmark. And Lost Gen's lone Slam winner, Dominic Thiem (who was arguably Next Gen, born in September of 1993) didn't reach the top 100 until he was 20 and failed to meet any of the benchmarks at the requisite age, even if he eventually reached all by the #1.

So interesting. Donald Young and Bernard Tomic are distant memories, and Nishikori, sadly, is becoming one. Grigor Dimitrov will remain the poster child for the Lost Gen. Obviously, it was hard to follow the Big 3/4, but this generation really failed in all respects. I've always argued that Thiem should be Next Gen, because he started a bit late, and I'm going to campaign for it. Lost Gen deserves to be a group without a Major. Some talent in there, but no guts or commitment.

The first Next Genner by chronological birth year to make the first benchmark was Borna Coric, who entered the top 100 at age 17 (Nick Kyrgios just missed the cut, shortly after turning 19). Coric reached the top 50 at age 18, but then stalled.

And then we come to a pair of players who may forever be linked, as two of the best players of Next Gen, but also seeming underachievers: Alexander Zverev and Stefanos Tsitsipas. Zverev reached every benchmark except the last two, which he missed when he turned 25 in April. Tsitsipas is interesting because he actually missed the first benchmark by a few weeks, but has reached every one since, and has until next August to reach the final two benchmarks (GS title and #1 ranking).

A couple other Next Genners reached the first benchmark but fell off after: Frances Tiafoe and Taylor Fritz, both of whom entered the top 100 by age 18. But again, this isn't a rare feat - I don't know the exact number, but about a hundred players (give or take a dozen or two) have reached it during the Open Era.

Other top 10 Next Genners like Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berretini, Karen Khachanov, and Hubert Hurkacz all missed the first benchmark, and most after.

I certainly think you are right that Tsitsipas and Zverev may well be forever link as underachievers. Didn't each have a 2 sets lead in a Major final, only to blow it? At least the Greek lost to Novak. But still, I have to think those were two guys sitting home at the tail end of this US Open mourning their various misfortunes. (And they seem just like the crybabies to do it. Both come off as feeling entitled, with not enough to show for it. Either or both may win a couple of Majors yet, but I won't be holding my breath. More than that, I doubt it.

I'll hold out some hope for the other guys listed who didn't make the mark on your timeline...who knows if the timeframe changes. But I think that 3 or 4 for any one stand-out there is still hope.

The Millenial Gen actually has five players who have met the first benchmark: Denis Shapovalov, Felix Auger-Aliassime, Jannik Sinner, Holger Rune, and Carlos Alcaraz. Both Shapo and FAA have missed later benchmarks.

As noted, Alcaraz has reached all ten benchmarks - only the 17th player in Open Era history to do so. Sinner has reached six of ten, and has less than a year to reach two more: his first big title and top 5 ranking. He's been ranked as high as #9 and not only won an ATP 500 but one Masters Final, so seems like a good bet to reach those two. And then he'll have a few more years to win his first Slam and reach #1, so has a decent chance of meeting all of the benchmarks.

For Rune, it is early. He entered the top 100 at age 18, the top 50 and also his first title and Slam QF at age 19. He doesn't turn 20 until next April, so has time to reach the next two on the clock: a top 20 and top 10 ranking (he's ranked as high as #26).

Alcaraz is a rare meteor. I think a lot of us like Sinner for many reasons, and hope he turns out to have a great rivalry with Alcaraz, for example. I could keep watching tennis for that. Rune is turning out to be a bit of a jerk. If he's not careful, he could fall into Tsitsipas/Zverev and even (gasp) Tomic territory. But he might change his ways if he really wants it, and probably if a good coach takes him in hand. Still holding out hope for Felix, but Shapo is a disappointment not only in tennis, but in deportment.

 

[El Dude]

There is a lot in your 2nd post above, so I'll just touch on a few things. Excellent post!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Moxie!

I didn't mean to imply "asterisk" on Alcaraz's #1 in my above. There are too many variables on how rankings might have gone, if the world were "normal" in the past 2.5 years, so we just have to let it go and be what it is. Some players to get more of a leg-up at #1. Roger became #1 when they were handing it out like candy. But keeping it for 4.5 years was all him. Rafa had to win 5 Majors before getting to #1 (see: Federer, Roger.) What Carlos does with his benefit will be on him, too.

Yeah, I'm pretty much on the same page re: Alcaraz getting to #1 - sort of like the crazy covid rankings. No one loved it, but it made sense why they did it that way. And as someone pointed out here, the bottom line with Alcaraz is that it is just math, and he comes out on top. I am rather miffed about the exclusion of Novak and the Russian players, but there's no denying that Alcaraz has had a great year and I'm happy to see him rise so quickly.

You say that Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are peers "to a lesser degree" of Nadal, but interestedly, Djokovic played each a similar amount of times, for the most part. I have no real point here, other than that it surprised me. Rafa is 16-5 over the 3, Novak 6-12. Makes sense, as Novak flowered later, but interesting how Novak did play those 3 nearly as much. Also a small point, Safin beat Novak on his way to winning the 2005 Australian Open. Novak was 17.

I didn't know that. I still think they were closer to peers with Nadal, for the reason you stated: Rafa was an elite player in 2005, while Novak wasn't until 2008, when those guys were not the players they were in their best years, all for different reasons (with the possible exception of Roddick). But my implied point is that those three never got to the next level partially because of Roger and Rafa, but Novak didn't really have anything to do with it.

So interesting. Donald Young and Bernard Tomic are distant memories, and Nishikori, sadly, is becoming one. Grigor Dimitrov will remain the poster child for the Lost Gen. Obviously, it was hard to follow the Big 3/4, but this generation really failed in all respects. I've always argued that Thiem should be Next Gen, because he started a bit late, and I'm going to campaign for it. Lost Gen deserves to be a group without a Major. Some talent in there, but no guts or commitment.

Nishikori may be the greatest player of the Open Era never to win a big title - at least if you look at various statistical models like GOAT Points. It is a shame, really (not to menting the Forgotten One, Milos Raonic).

And I agree with you about Thiem. Not only are there no official dates for these generations, but he's more part of the Next Gen cohort in terms of prime years. I see him as the "First Next Genner." He didn't enter the top 100 until early 2014, and the top 20 until mid 2015...a year or less than true early Next Genners Kyrgios and Coric, and far after the better Lost Genners.

I certainly think you are right that Tsitsipas and Zverev may well be forever link as underachievers. Didn't each have a 2 sets lead in a Major final, only to blow it? At least the Greek lost to Novak. But still, I have to think those were two guys sitting home at the tail end of this US Open mourning their various misfortunes. (And they seem just like the crybabies to do it. Both come off as feeling entitled, with not enough to show for it. Either or both may win a couple of Majors yet, but I won't be holding my breath. More than that, I doubt it.

I kind of see them as the Berdych-Tsonga of the current era. Not quite the same, as they're both more accomplished in terms of records, but that they've settled into being the "also-rans" of the Slams. Guys that go deep, are fixtures in the top 10, but not bringing home Slam trophies.

That said, both are too talented to give up on. People have complained about Tsitsipas recently, but he still won a Masters this year, and reached two other Masters finals, with three career big titles to his name - and he's just 24. Zverev has EIGHT big titles, the same as Chang, Vilas, and Ashe, and isn't done. I think where the two have both disappointed is at Slams, where they've taken a Berdych-Tsonga-like role as also-rans.

I'll hold out some hope for the other guys listed who didn't make the mark on your timeline...who knows if the timeframe changes. But I think that 3 or 4 for any one stand-out there is still hope.

While I think some of those guys (e.g. Berretini, Rublev, FAA, etc) will win big titles and maybe even a Slam or two, I do feel reasonably confident in predicting that almost all--if not all--will not become ATGs. That said...

Alcaraz is a rare meteor. I think a lot of us like Sinner for many reasons, and hope he turns out to have a great rivalry with Alcaraz, for example. I could keep watching tennis for that. Rune is turning out to be a bit of a jerk. If he's not careful, he could fall into Tsitsipas/Zverev and even (gasp) Tomic territory. But he might change his ways if he really wants it, and probably if a good coach takes him in hand. Still holding out hope for Felix, but Shapo is a disappointment not only in tennis, but in deportment.

...I do still think Sinner has a chance. And I also hold out hope for Felix, though I'm starting to get quasi-Dimitrov vibes: A guy who looks like he should be better than he is, but never really gets there. I do still think Felix will win big titles and maybe Slams, but is closer to Tsitsipas/Zverev than he is to Alcaraz, or probably Sinner. But he also strikes me as a go for whom things could come together all of a sudden in a big way. Meaning, I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being right there with Sinner as the main challenger to Alcaraz. But I just don't feel confident in that.

As for Rune, one problem he has--aside from his attitude--is that he's exactly the same age as Alcaraz, so will forever be compared to him. Rune could still become a great player, though, if he continues his upward trajectory. It is just that Alcaraz has risen so high so quickly. Meaning, Rune could still be great, but develop at a more measured pace.

Now I'm not predicting that he'll be an ATG - I have no idea, and I think we just need to see more, and will be able to make a more educated guess a year or two from now. But I am merely saying that we shouldn't judge him by the "Alcaraz Standard," which is rather singular.

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Moxie!

And for yours!

I didn't know that. I still think they were closer to peers with Nadal, for the reason you stated: Rafa was an elite player in 2005, while Novak wasn't until 2008, when those guys were not the players they were in their best years, all for different reasons (with the possible exception of Roddick). But my implied point is that those three never got to the next level partially because of Roger and Rafa, but Novak didn't really have anything to do with it.

Not to get too much back to the old guard, but you'd be surprised what you find in those H2H's. You're going on instinct/perceived wisdom, but you'd be wrong.

Those 3, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick, lost a fair amount of important things to Roger, particularly Roddick. Safin also lost a great deal to injury and craziness, Hewitt to injury and basically that he burned bright and fast and lost a lot of ground pretty young. But neither one lost much of importance to Nadal or Djokovic. Safin is not interesting v. either, but do look at Hewitt and Roddick v. both. Hewitt and Nadal mostly met R64 and R32, with one SF in Hamburg (W-Nadal.) Djokovic, however, beat Hewitt in R16 at W in 2007 and R16 in 2008.

As to Roddick, Nadal and he didn't contest much of consequence, besides a SF at IW in '07, but Djokovic beat Roddick at the USO in a QF in '08, lost to Roddick in AO '09 QF via RET, and otherwise contested a fair number of QF and SF. (H2H 5-4 Roddick.)

In one little neat bit, Nadal beat Roddick in the SF at Queens on grass in '08, where Djokovic beat Hewitt in his SF, and Nadal beat Djokovic in a very memorable final there, that year.

Point being, those 3 didn't do better mainly due to Roger, injuries and their own failings, but almost nothing to do with Rafa, and more to do with Novak than you would have thought, though still not enough to say so. But still...more Novak than Rafa, in big tournaments. It's surprising, and I thought you'd find it interesting.

As to the rest, I appreciate your speculations and observations, and have nothing more to add, at the moment. But it will be interesting to see how these younger players go, especially as Big 2/3 wane. I have to say that Thiem/Tsitsipas/Zverev is almost like the current soap opera of men's tennis...what will happen? I'm sorry that so much injury is involved, but lots of mental drama, too. I have no idea where the road leads for any of the 3 of them, right now. At least we have some bright and shiny youngsters.

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie, your general take on those players aligns with my understanding. The new bit is how much Novak played against them, although I did know he struggled against Roddick. I just don't see those matchups as all that meaningful, considering that their peaks didn't align at all, or just a bit - and none of them ever faced the 2011 and later version of Novak (And barely the 2008 and later Rafa). That would have been ugly, I'm guessing.

I think the Rafa matchups are a tad more meaningful, though far less so than the Roger matchups. The 2005 version of Rafa - while not as good as the 2008 and later version - was still closer to it than even the 2008 version of Novak was to the 2011 version. IMO. Especially on clay. But that veers into a different conversation, and I don't want to get your lesser fellow fans all hot and bothered .

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, your general take on those players aligns with my understanding. The new bit is how much Novak played against them, although I did know he struggled against Roddick. I just don't see those matchups as all that meaningful, considering that their peaks didn't align at all, or just a bit - and none of them ever faced the 2011 and later version of Novak (And barely the 2008 and later Rafa). That would have been ugly, I'm guessing.

I think the Rafa matchups are a tad more meaningful, though far less so than the Roger matchups. The 2005 version of Rafa - while not as good as the 2008 and later version - was still closer to it than even the 2008 version of Novak was to the 2011 version. IMO. Especially on clay. But that veers into a different conversation, and I don't want to get your lesser fellow fans all hot and bothered .

Yes, we agree. I don't question that Nadal was more of a force generally when Roddick and Hewitt, in particular will still around, but Novak was also responsible for taking them out in some big moments, so in terms of direct impact on their careers, it's closer than one would have thought, Rafa and Novak to those two. But still, it's not significant.

 

[El Dude]

Just an update on Holger Rune. With his performance this year--really, the last couple months since posting this--he has now met 7 of 10 benchmarks. What remains are:
- Top 5 at age 21
- #1 at age 24
- Grand Slam at age 24

So he's got a lot of time and is likely to make those benchmarks, with the hardest being #1 by age 24.

 

[Moxie]

Just an update on Holger Rune. With his performance this year--really, the last couple months since posting this--he has now met 7 of 10 benchmarks. What remains are:
- Top 5 at age 21
- #1 at age 24
- Grand Slam at age 24

So he's got a lot of time and is likely to make those benchmarks, with the hardest being #1 by age 24.

Thanks for the update. Actually, do you see getting to #1 by 24, i.e., within the next 4.5 years that hard for young Rune? If he gets a Major, or two, which is not unlikely, and there is no big lock-out at the top, as in like the Federer-Nadal chokehold on it, do you really not see a time at #1 for him by, say, 21-22? We have to think that at least Rafa will be retired in a year or so, maybe even while still in the top 10. Don't you see a lot of volatility at the top for the next while? Yes, it has been an odd year for rankings, but Alcaraz is #1. Even HE seems to think that's a bit weird and not worth thinking about too hard. (Wise position, IMO.) Sure, Novak will more than likely find his way to #1 again, but can he hold it until he's 41?

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for the update. Actually, do you see getting to #1 by 24, i.e., within the next 4.5 years that hard for young Rune? If he gets a Major, or two, which is not unlikely, and there is no big lock-out at the top, as in like the Federer-Nadal chokehold on it, do you really not see a time at #1 for him by, say, 21-22? We have to think that at least Rafa will be retired in a year or so, maybe even while still in the top 10. Don't you see a lot of volatility at the top for the next while? Yes, it has been an odd year for rankings, but Alcaraz is #1. Even HE seems to think that's a bit weird and not worth thinking about too hard. (Wise position, IMO.) Sure, Novak will more than likely find his way to #1 again, but can he hold it until he's 41?

I do think he has a very good chance of it, but was just pointing out that, historically speaking, getting to #1 is harder/rarer than winning a Slam. Not to mention that quick rises up the rankings often result in consolidation periods. I think of old Pete Sampras, who entered the top 10 on September 10 of 1990 (just after turning 19), but didn't reach #1 until April of 1993 (age 22). Meaning, it took him more than two and a half years to go from top 10 to #1.

Of course the context of 2023 is very different than the early 90s, when Edberg and Becker were peaking, Lendl still very good, and a strong young generation reaching their primes--not just Pete, but Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, etc, plus guys like Muster, Stich, etc. There seem to be no Edberg/Becker types in Next Gen, unless Medvedev can get back on course and Zverev/Tsitsipas find god and take a huge leap forward.

But next year should be wild, and a lot of fun. Not really sure what to expect, except the unexpected!

 

[Moxie]

I do think he has a very good chance of it, but was just pointing out that, historically speaking, getting to #1 is harder/rarer than winning a Slam. Not to mention that quick rises up the rankings often result in consolidation periods. I think of old Pete Sampras, who entered the top 10 on September 10 of 1990 (just after turning 19), but didn't reach #1 until April of 1993 (age 22). Meaning, it took him more than two and a half years to go from top 10 to #1.

Of course the context of 2023 is very different than the early 90s, when Edberg and Becker were peaking, Lendl still very good, and a strong young generation reaching their primes--not just Pete, but Agassi, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic, etc, plus guys like Muster, Stich, etc. There seem to be no Edberg/Becker types in Next Gen, unless Medvedev can get back on course and Zverev/Tsitsipas find god and take a huge leap forward.

But next year should be wild, and a lot of fun. Not really sure what to expect, except the unexpected!

Surely, reaching #1 has been harder and rarer in that last 18 years, but it wasn't just before that. Every Major win came with a stint at #1 for a while, and I don't know why that might not be coming up again soon. Your example of Pete Sampras was that he didn't reach #1 until 22. I'm saying, Rune has 4.5 years to do it. My guess, if I were laying down money, is that he will, before 24.

I'm not putting Medvedev out to pasture, at all. I think he is still well in the game. Tsitsipas I'm ready to sell. Zverev you might hold on, but not just if he comes back well enough from injury, but if he comes back with a certain amount of humility and reassessment of his potential, after such a terrible injury.

I agree that 2023 suddenly looks like it has more options, and might just be surprising.

 

[Kieran]

A lot of youngsters blaze into the scene but then there’s a period where they take time to adjust to their new surroundings. Pete was an example of that. He hated the sudden attention, the pressure, the target on his back. Jimmy Connors chastised him over this, when Pete said it was a relief to lose in the US Open in 1991. I’m sure Connors understood what Pete meant (I’d hope he did) but in typical macho way he had to use Pete’s situation as another opportunity to promote his own legendary fighting qualities. I’ve seen matches where Jimmy folded early, but he probably wouldn’t count them.

I think Carlos is in the process of processing, and Novak certainly took a while to rediscover himself after winning his first slam. It’s not always a simple curve, as it was for Rafa and Borg. They’re just relentless, remorseless sorts who block out everything. But the trajectory in general for youngsters is to rise too quickly, then have to suffer a pause while they try to understand what’s happening to them.

By the way, we used to have discussions about why teenagers weren’t breaking through any more. That players seemed to be peaking later, but Carlos is proof - and hopefully others will be - that you need a very strong mind at this level, and physical resilience to match it. If you have them, then youth is no obstacle…

 

[don_fabio]

What I like most about Alcaraz and Rune is when I watch them I feel like I'm watching the future of tennis. I'm not sayin they will win 20 slams each, it's too early for that, but I feel they are more complete players at the age of what 18,19 than big 3 were when they were coming up on the scene.

Sure Rafa was a beast on clay at that age, but only on clay, his serve was a weakness. The way these 2 kids play they stand out as being complete players already They are faster, they defend extremly well, they strike ball with insane speed and accuracy. Rune served like a seasoned pro in Paris. He goes to net as natural as Fed, plays perfect dropshots, mixes with slice if needed. Finds unreal angles with his shots. No visible weak spots and same goes for Alcaraz.

I believe if these 2 guys stay committed as they are right now that they will elevate tennis to levels we never seen before, similar to what prime big 3 did. Future looks bright and exciting.

 

[El Dude]

A lot of youngsters blaze into the scene but then there’s a period where they take time to adjust to their new surroundings. Pete was an example of that. He hated the sudden attention, the pressure, the target on his back. Jimmy Connors chastised him over this, when Pete said it was a relief to lose in the US Open in 1991. I’m sure Connors understood what Pete meant (I’d hope he did) but in typical macho way he had to use Pete’s situation as another opportunity to promote his own legendary fighting qualities. I’ve seen matches where Jimmy folded early, but he probably wouldn’t count them.

I think Carlos is in the process of processing, and Novak certainly took a while to rediscover himself after winning his first slam. It’s not always a simple curve, as it was for Rafa and Borg. They’re just relentless, remorseless sorts who block out everything. But the trajectory in general for youngsters is to rise too quickly, then have to suffer a pause while they try to understand what’s happening to them.

Yep, this elaborates on what I was getting at.

By the way, we used to have discussions about why teenagers weren’t breaking through any more. That players seemed to be peaking later, but Carlos is proof - and hopefully others will be - that you need a very strong mind at this level, and physical resilience to match it. If you have them, then youth is no obstacle…

I'm now inclined to believe that players aren't simply reaching their peak level until later, but that we just haven't had any true greats breakthrough. Actually, this is part of why Zverev is disappointing: he was the first very young player to break through since, I don't know, Del Potro? His early career (age 18-21ish) looked like he was heading on a trajectory of at least "lesser greatness," but he has stalled out a bit, or at least plateaued. I still think he has a good chance of winning a Slam or two, but he's just not going to be as good as it looked three or four years ago.

But Alcaraz--and now Rune--prove that young guys can still breakthrough at the requisite ages to be on the "path of greatness." But you don't even have to be as young as Alcaraz (18) or Rune (19) when they won their first big titles to still project for greatness, as this chart shows:

Meaning, the cutoff--in terms of historical precedents--is before one's 22nd birthday. Alcaraz is one of only seven players to win their first big title before their 19th birthday, and 5 of 6 of the previous ones (83%) went on to be true ATGs, with the sixth (Chang) still being very good.

Rune enters a range where there's more of a question - you've got some guys (Andrei Medvedev and Albert Mancini) who didn't fulfill early promise, with 8 of 12 (67%) of teenagers going on to become ATGs -- still nice odds, but not quite as good as Alcaraz's age cohort.

As the chart illustrates, Sascha is in the next group: he won his first big title at age 20, when you had a lot of lesser Slam winners and second tier types starting to win theirs.

The chart also shows that every ATG won their first big title before their 22nd birthday, which is why it is one of the benchmarks I mention. This doesn't bode well for FAA, and Sinner is on the clock, turning 22 in August of 2023. This doesn't mean that someone like FAA couldn't set a new precedent and win his first big title before August (his 23rd birthday), and eventually go on to win 6+ Slams. But it is very unlikely, given historical precedents - and one of the reasons I see him more as a future multi-Slam winner, but not a true ATG - like we can probably expect Alcaraz to be, and possibly Rune.

In other words, if I were to speculate--simply based on historical precedents--the eventual outcome of various young players, it would be:

ATG (6+ Slams): Alcaraz, Rune
Lesser/Near Greats (2-4 Slams): Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, FAA, Sinner
Elites (0-1 Slams and/or 2+ big titles): Ruud, Rublev, Berretini, Hurkacz, Shapovalov, Musetti, maybe Khachanov, Fritz, Tiafoe, Coric, and lots of other candidates...

Now whether or not those players end up in those categories is another matter. But in terms of their performance thus far, that's generally where they project.

 

[El Dude]

What I like most about Alcaraz and Rune is when I watch them I feel like I'm watching the future of tennis. I'm not sayin they will win 20 slams each, it's too early for that, but I feel they are more complete players at the age of what 18,19 than big 3 were when they were coming up on the scene.

Sure Rafa was a beast on clay at that age, but only on clay, his serve was a weakness. The way these 2 kids play they stand out as being complete players already They are faster, they defend extremly well, they strike ball with insane speed and accuracy. Rune served like a seasoned pro in Paris. He goes to net as natural as Fed, plays perfect dropshots, mixes with slice if needed. Finds unreal angles with his shots. No visible weak spots and same goes for Alcaraz.

I believe if these 2 guys stay committed as they are right now that they will elevate tennis to levels we never seen before, similar to what prime big 3 did. Future looks bright and exciting.

Well put. While it is hard to imagine anyone ever being as dominant as the Big Three, we also need to remember that in every sport, players generally get better over time. There are ups and downs, eras in which more great players are clustered, and eras in which they are more sparse, but the general trajectory is improvement.

As an aside, this is another argument against Slam Absolutism: the context may not be right for Alcaraz or Rune to win 15+ Slams, even if they peak at levels above the Big Three...for one, we don't know who will emerge next; I also think the "second tier" is deeper now than it was during the Big Three era.

Meaning, it could be that we don't see sustained dominance like the Big Three for decades to come, while at the same time seeing higher levels of peak performance.