- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,544
- Reactions
- 6,372
- Points
- 113
I don't want to derail other threads with my tangential musings, so thought I'd start this one. This is riffing off of the Wimbledon final thread, especially Pat Cash's rhetorical question about "who will challenge Alcaraz in the next few years?"
As I said to @Moxie , two things make me question the hint of certainty of the notion that Alcaraz will be largely unchallenged over the next few years (perhaps implying a similar level of dominance to Roger's 2004-07 reign, which is probably the best example of a largely unchallenged few year period). For one, Novak is still around and playing at a very high level. This may not be the Novak of 2011-16, or even of 2021, but he's still very good - and better than the version of Agassi that Roger faced. At the very least he won't be a pushover for Alcaraz; that is, he will challenge him. Daniil Medvedev, too, especially on hard courts.
Secondly, and more to the point of this thread, we just don't know how other young players will develop. We don't know how much more development Jannik Sinner (22 next month) or Holger Rune (20 in April, a few weeks older than Alcaraz) have - and even other young players: while they're both either 23 or almost 23, both Sebastien Korda and Felix Auger-Aliassime have un-tapped potential; we also have promising 21-year olds Lorenzo Musetti and Jiri Lehecka; Ben Shelton (20); and the rising French duo of 19-year olds in Arthur Fils and Luca van Assche.
What we're seeing in Carlos Alcaraz is both a player of immense talent and an early-bloomer. But the latter isn't a pre-requisite for the former. Alcaraz has already done more before American drinking age than all but a small handful of players in the Open Era: only Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, and Rafael Nadal were similarly accomplished (and Mac didn't even win his second Slam until after his 21st birthday, but had won a ton of other big titles).
Consider Roger Federer at the same age. Alcaraz was born on May 5, 2003; today is July 18 of 2023, so he's 20 years old and about two and half months. Roger was born on August 8 of 1981, so was the same age in late October of 2001.
Alcaraz (now): 2 Grand Slams, 4 Masters, 12 titles overall; 2344 Elo; one year-end #1, 29 weeks at #1.
Federer (end of Oct, 2001): 0 Grand Slams, 1 Masters, 4 titles overall; ~2116 Elo (had been 2168 earlier in the year); ranked #12
It would be almost two more years until Roger won his first Slam at Wimbledon in 2003, and two and a half more years until he became #1 -- or for his Elo rating to reach the elite level of 2300; he wouldn't reach Alcaraz's current Elo level until almost three years later, in May of 2004.
No one will say that Roger didn't become one of the greatest players ever. And his 2004-07 period was probably the most dominant four-year stretch in Open Era history. But at Carlos's age he was merely a very good player - he hadn't yet reached the top 10, had won a Masters but not a Slam. In fact, he had only reached two Slam QFs, earlier that year. If you want to look for a comp among currently active young players, Jannik Sinner works - his numbers are similar, even if he hasn't won a Masters yet. This is not to say that Sinner (or anyone, including Alcaraz) will become as good as Roger--he almost certainly won't--but to point out that at the same point in his career, Roger was about as good as Sinner is now.
Which brings me back to my central thesis: Different players, great and not great, develop in different ways and at different paces. We shouldn't confuse Alcaraz's unusually quick development with how great players inherently blossom. Many take a bit longer to cook. Connors did, as did Lendl, Edberg, even Sampras and Novak and most definitely Roger.
I do think that Alcaraz will be the player to beat in the years to come. But I'm not ready yet to say that there will be no one to challenge him. It is too soon to tell - especially with Rune, who I think has shown flashes of greatness to come; but also Sinner and other players, both known and unknown. All we know right now is that Alcaraz is already a great player; what we don't know is if anyone will join him in greatness, or if anyone will at least be good enough to play spoiler and challenge him in certain contexts.
As I said to @Moxie , two things make me question the hint of certainty of the notion that Alcaraz will be largely unchallenged over the next few years (perhaps implying a similar level of dominance to Roger's 2004-07 reign, which is probably the best example of a largely unchallenged few year period). For one, Novak is still around and playing at a very high level. This may not be the Novak of 2011-16, or even of 2021, but he's still very good - and better than the version of Agassi that Roger faced. At the very least he won't be a pushover for Alcaraz; that is, he will challenge him. Daniil Medvedev, too, especially on hard courts.
Secondly, and more to the point of this thread, we just don't know how other young players will develop. We don't know how much more development Jannik Sinner (22 next month) or Holger Rune (20 in April, a few weeks older than Alcaraz) have - and even other young players: while they're both either 23 or almost 23, both Sebastien Korda and Felix Auger-Aliassime have un-tapped potential; we also have promising 21-year olds Lorenzo Musetti and Jiri Lehecka; Ben Shelton (20); and the rising French duo of 19-year olds in Arthur Fils and Luca van Assche.
What we're seeing in Carlos Alcaraz is both a player of immense talent and an early-bloomer. But the latter isn't a pre-requisite for the former. Alcaraz has already done more before American drinking age than all but a small handful of players in the Open Era: only Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, and Rafael Nadal were similarly accomplished (and Mac didn't even win his second Slam until after his 21st birthday, but had won a ton of other big titles).
Consider Roger Federer at the same age. Alcaraz was born on May 5, 2003; today is July 18 of 2023, so he's 20 years old and about two and half months. Roger was born on August 8 of 1981, so was the same age in late October of 2001.
Alcaraz (now): 2 Grand Slams, 4 Masters, 12 titles overall; 2344 Elo; one year-end #1, 29 weeks at #1.
Federer (end of Oct, 2001): 0 Grand Slams, 1 Masters, 4 titles overall; ~2116 Elo (had been 2168 earlier in the year); ranked #12
It would be almost two more years until Roger won his first Slam at Wimbledon in 2003, and two and a half more years until he became #1 -- or for his Elo rating to reach the elite level of 2300; he wouldn't reach Alcaraz's current Elo level until almost three years later, in May of 2004.
No one will say that Roger didn't become one of the greatest players ever. And his 2004-07 period was probably the most dominant four-year stretch in Open Era history. But at Carlos's age he was merely a very good player - he hadn't yet reached the top 10, had won a Masters but not a Slam. In fact, he had only reached two Slam QFs, earlier that year. If you want to look for a comp among currently active young players, Jannik Sinner works - his numbers are similar, even if he hasn't won a Masters yet. This is not to say that Sinner (or anyone, including Alcaraz) will become as good as Roger--he almost certainly won't--but to point out that at the same point in his career, Roger was about as good as Sinner is now.
Which brings me back to my central thesis: Different players, great and not great, develop in different ways and at different paces. We shouldn't confuse Alcaraz's unusually quick development with how great players inherently blossom. Many take a bit longer to cook. Connors did, as did Lendl, Edberg, even Sampras and Novak and most definitely Roger.
I do think that Alcaraz will be the player to beat in the years to come. But I'm not ready yet to say that there will be no one to challenge him. It is too soon to tell - especially with Rune, who I think has shown flashes of greatness to come; but also Sinner and other players, both known and unknown. All we know right now is that Alcaraz is already a great player; what we don't know is if anyone will join him in greatness, or if anyone will at least be good enough to play spoiler and challenge him in certain contexts.
Last edited:
