El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,041
- Reactions
- 5,608
- Points
- 113
Moxie, you know I love you - we're old internet friends at this point - but I find it irritating when you read stuff into what I say that I'm not actually saying (or intending), and typically when there's a whiff of Rafa in the air ;-). In this case, as I said, I wasn't saying that I think Alcaraz is similar in style to Ferrer or Nadal, but possibly halfway between them in ability - like an Agassi. Perhaps I could have been more clear on that. And that's hardly a knock on Alcaraz! And yes, I compared him to them because they're all Spaniards, though I think it is hardly weird to think of Rafa in reference to Alcaraz.By "strawman," you mean I misrepresent your opinion? Well, feel free to clarify for yourself. You were kind of making an A/B comparison with FAA and Alcaraz, whereby Felix is comparable to Novak and Roger, and Alcaraz is somewhere between Rafa and Ferrer, with Agassi as the midpoint. I do think you know too much about tennis not to notice that your A comparison to Djokovic and Federer is generally considered a more aggressive style, and your B reference is generally in the more defensive. I was noting that Alcaraz is actually a more aggressive player than that, (as is Rafa). But also, I still think that putting Ferrer in there is a bit weird. Alcaraz already has a Major, which Ferrer doesn't. I know from other threads that you have belief in Alcaraz, so I don't think you're demeaning him. I just thought it was an odd comparison. Plus, why not throw in a Ferrer and Agassi-type comparison on the FAA side of the equation. (Especially since Felix is the one who has yet to win a Major?) Such that, say, Felix could end up somewhere between Grigor Dimtrov and Stephan Edberg, as an example. Look, it was a random post, and I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire on it. I just found the comparisons unequal and rather wrong. That was my opinion. I commented. No need to get all tetchy about it. I know I often rub you the wrong way. It's not intentional.
And I was only comparing FAA to Novak and Roger in that they took longer to come into their own than Rafa did...again, not about play styles, and certainly not ability (No way FAA is anywhere close to Novak/Roger...in truth, Alcaraz is likely far closer to Rafa than FAA is to any of the Big Three).
Actually, the Big Three developed at different paces and in different ways, so they're worth considering as different "archetypal developmental trajectories." As you know, Rafa surged and was an elite by his 19th birthday, in 2005. And then he jumped again in 2008 when his excellence on clay spread (to a large degree) to other surfaces, at the age of 22. Novak reached elite form at 20 2007-08, but didn't really fully come into his own until 2011 at age 23-24. Roger was a lesser player than both through age 21 or so, not reaching elite status until 2003 at 22, but then quickly becoming super-dominant in the following year.
The point being, different trajectories from all three. Rafa surged (2005), stabilized, then surged again (2008). Novak rose more gradually to Slam-winning form (2008), stabilized (even stagnated) for a few years, then surged again in 2011. Roger's rise was more gradual, then spiked in 2004.
So in that regard, it is natural to compare Alcaraz due to his quick rise, which is most similar to Rafa. There's also the Nadal Academy and them both being Spanish, as well as certain stylistic similarities.
As I think you know, I have said that I think FAA is in danger of being another Dimitrov, so that is an apt comparison. But sure, I think he could also be a late-blooming Edberg type. With his talent, it is hard to imagine him not winning at least a couple Slams and a bunch of Masters before he's done.
Actually, FAA's trajectory is more similar to Andy's, though he hasn't been as good yet as Andy was at a similar age. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see Felix put it all together around age 24-25, like Andy did, though likely be below whatever level Alcaraz (and maybe Rune) rise to.
Anyhow, perhaps the confusion is that I tend to focus on more general things, like overall ability and career resumes: stuff that is easier to measure objectively (that is, statistically). I tend to veer away from style comparisons for the opposite reason of your playful little jab: because I don't know as much about actual play as many here, so tend to defer to others on that sort of thing. Actually, this is an example of misunderstanding (or at least miscommunication): What you see as arrogance on my part is actually me sticking to what I feel like I have a a valid opinion. I usually only put forth an opinion when I feel like I know what I'm talking about - like stats, the historical record, etc...stuff that is out there for anyone to look up, though few do. But play styles and such, I'm a neophyte compared to many here.
Last edited:
