Sincaraz = Fedal II?

[El Dude]

To revisit this idea, take a look at the Elo Ratings of Alcaraz (through 2024) vs Rafa up to a bit older:

Rafa is red, Carlos is blue. Rafa's Elo as been slightly higher, but not by much. What is striking is the similar pattern. Both spiked before turning 19, then had two peaks - for Rafa corresponding with clay season, for Carlos, clay into grass.

Now this is what bears watching: Rafa reached a new level in 2008, the year he turned 22 - which was probably his third best overall season. That correlates with Carlos in 2025.

Roger and Sinner up next...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

To revisit this idea, take a look at the Elo Ratings of Alcaraz (through 2024) vs Rafa up to a bit older:
View attachment 9986
Rafa is red, Carlos is blue. Rafa's Elo as been slightly higher, but not by much. What is striking is the similar pattern. Both spiked before turning 19, then had two peaks - for Rafa corresponding with clay season, for Carlos, clay into grass.

Now this is what bears watching: Rafa reached a new level in 2008, the year he turned 22 - which was probably his third best overall season. That correlates with Carlos in 2025.

Roger and Sinner up next...

Watching Rafa live at RG 2008, was one of the highest playing levels I have seen from a player, he took his clay game to another level as far as I am concerned

 

[El Dude]

Jannik (blue) and Roger (red):

As you can see, the pattern is very similar to each other, and a bit different from Rafa/Carlos. The rise of Jannik/Roger is slower, though still very steady (even inexorable). Roger kept rising steadily until around his age 24 birthday (August 2005), then the rise slowed but he crept up a bit more for almost another year, peaking in Elo at age 25, early in 2007.

Jannik in 2025 is the same age as Roger in 2005: 23 going on 24. If he continues to follow a similar pattern, he will reach his best level later this year or early next. But of course one difference is the ban - so we'll see if that impacts his development at all.

Regardless, the similarities of these two pairs of greats across a gap of 20ish years - in terms of Elo rating - is rather striking.

 

[El Dude]

Watching Rafa live at RG 2008, was one of the highest playing levels I have seen from a player, he took his clay game to another level as far as I am concerned

Yeah, I think you could make the argument that his best clay level was in 2008, even though he had that incredible run in 2010 when he won all three clay Masters and Roland Garros - the only season, I believe, that someone has won four clay big titles. UTS has his peak clay Elo in 2013 (2669), which is the best version of Rafa I've seen. 2008 was perhaps more impressive, though, in that he was already incredible and became an unreal clay player...but I think he maintained that clay level through 2014 (and came close again in 2017-22, though not as good as he had been in 2008-14).

Not sure if you listened to the Roddick interview, but it was interesting to see Rafa's pride at his grass play. He perhaps rightfully points out that if not for 2009, he could very well have won three WImbledons in a row, and six Wim finals. I even sensed a touch of regret at not being able to win more. He seemed to attribute his dip in 2012 and for the next five years to dodgy knees and trouble transitioning from clay to grass, then pointed out that he started reaching the SF again in 2018 with his knees feeling better. No way to know how true that is, but I'll take his word for it - and it certainly makes sense.

UTS has Rafa's peak grass Elo as 14th best all-time (2010), but I think he probably belongs in the top 10 - at least with Andy Murray (#9) and Stefan Edberg (#10), and I'd argue even a bit better. I'd have to watch tape, but I'd probably take 2010 Rafa over 2016 Andy on grass, with apologies to the great Scot. Both won two grass Slams but I think Rafa's 5 to 3 Wimbledon finals is more indicative of their relative greatness on grass.

On the other hand, Rafa in that interview wasn't all about playing "what if." He also talked about Roger's crazy level in 2017, and even said what some Federer fans have said: that Roger's problem with him early on was due to a "tactical error" on Roger's part. I sort of think this has to do with Roger's arrogance: he just couldn't accept that his tried and true approach didn't work on Rafa, but he kept at it.

I also don't agree with Rafa that Roger's 2017 level was his best. I just think it was his best level against Rafa. Roger was a better player in 2004-07. 2017 was a very high level, though.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yeah, I think you could make the argument that his best clay level was in 2008, even though he had that incredible run in 2010 when he won all three clay Masters and Roland Garros - the only season, I believe, that someone has won four clay big titles. UTS has his peak clay Elo in 2013 (2669), which is the best version of Rafa I've seen. 2008 was perhaps more impressive, though, in that he was already incredible and became an unreal clay player...but I think he maintained that clay level through 2014 (and came close again in 2017-22, though not as good as he had been in 2008-14).

Not sure if you listened to the Roddick interview, but it was interesting to see Rafa's pride at his grass play. He perhaps rightfully points out that if not for 2009, he could very well have won three WImbledons in a row, and six Wim finals. I even sensed a touch of regret at not being able to win more. He seemed to attribute his dip in 2012 and for the next five years to dodgy knees and trouble transitioning from clay to grass, then pointed out that he started reaching the SF again in 2018 with his knees feeling better. No way to know how true that is, but I'll take his word for it - and it certainly makes sense.

UTS has Rafa's peak grass Elo as 14th best all-time (2010), but I think he probably belongs in the top 10 - at least with Andy Murray (#9) and Stefan Edberg (#10), and I'd argue even a bit better. I'd have to watch tape, but I'd probably take 2010 Rafa over 2016 Andy on grass, with apologies to the great Scot. Both won two grass Slams but I think Rafa's 5 to 3 Wimbledon finals is more indicative of their relative greatness on grass.

On the other hand, Rafa in that interview wasn't all about playing "what if." He also talked about Roger's crazy level in 2017, and even said what some Federer fans have said: that Roger's problem with him early on was due to a "tactical error" on Roger's part. I sort of think this has to do with Roger's arrogance: he just couldn't accept that his tried and true approach didn't work on Rafa, but he kept at it.

I also don't agree with Rafa that Roger's 2017 level was his best. I just think it was his best level against Rafa. Roger was a better player in 2004-07. 2017 was a very high level, though.

Thanks,
Yes I finished listening to Andy's podcast, Rafa has always loved Wimbledon, you know I thought he played well in the 2007 Wimbledon final and at times I thought he might of won it,.,agree with his thinking if not for 2009 he could have won 3 Wimbledons in a row, maybe now that is just 'woulda coulda shoulda"' thinking, I also think people underestimated his volleys skills, and wasnt given enough credit, I can say that now, after he has retired.
I also agree with your thoughts Roger to me was also a better player 2004-2007, though he played at a great high level in 2017.

 

[Kieran]

Not sure if you listened to the Roddick interview, but it was interesting to see Rafa's pride at his grass play. He perhaps rightfully points out that if not for 2009, he could very well have won three WImbledons in a row, and six Wim finals. I even sensed a touch of regret at not being able to win more. He seemed to attribute his dip in 2012 and for the next five years to dodgy knees and trouble transitioning from clay to grass, then pointed out that he started reaching the SF again in 2018 with his knees feeling better. No way to know how true that is, but I'll take his word for it - and it certainly makes sense.

They also added an extra week between the FO and Wimbledon, which helped him. I don’t think people appreciated enough how difficult that transition has always been, and so they laugh and slag him off for struggling at Wimbledon sometimes, as if he somehow was terrible on grass. When he was younger the transition wasn’t such a problem as it became…

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Jannik in 2025 is the same age as Roger in 2005: 23 going on 24. If he continues to follow a similar pattern, he will reach his best level later this year or early next. But of course one difference is the ban - so we'll see if that impacts his development at all.

Oddly enough, the ban won't even be the biggest piece of missing data of Sinner's career. Don't forget that Sinner is missing 6 months of data due to the pandemic (which is the solid line just above 1800 during his age 18.5 to 19). Sinner will have nearly a year's worth of missing data by the time the ban is over.

With some luck, hopefully we'll only need to wait about 3 years for the next charts, with Fonseca and Tien.

 

[El Dude]

Oddly enough, the ban won't even be the biggest piece of missing data of Sinner's career. Don't forget that Sinner is missing 6 months of data due to the pandemic (which is the solid line just above 1800 during his age 18.5 to 19). Sinner will have nearly a year's worth of missing data by the time the ban is over.

With some luck, hopefully we'll only need to wait about 3 years for the next charts, with Fonseca and Tien.

Don't sleep on Mensik, too. I see him and Tien as being more in the Fils range, but after Fonseca, those two are the top teenagers.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I think you could make the argument that his best clay level was in 2008, even though he had that incredible run in 2010 when he won all three clay Masters and Roland Garros - the only season, I believe, that someone has won four clay big titles. UTS has his peak clay Elo in 2013 (2669), which is the best version of Rafa I've seen. 2008 was perhaps more impressive, though, in that he was already incredible and became an unreal clay player...but I think he maintained that clay level through 2014 (and came close again in 2017-22, though not as good as he had been in 2008-14).

Margaret and I both have campaigned a lot over the years for the 2008 clay season as an extraordinarily high level, the best from Rafa, and of course she was there in person at RG. I know there are stats and etc., but Rafa fans were paying close attention, and the eye-test was pretty undeniable. One friend, unable to watch the first week of RG that year, asked me how Rafa was playing, and I said, "Like he invented a new game and didn't tell anyone else the rules."

Not sure if you listened to the Roddick interview, but it was interesting to see Rafa's pride at his grass play. He perhaps rightfully points out that if not for 2009, he could very well have won three WImbledons in a row, and six Wim finals. I even sensed a touch of regret at not being able to win more. He seemed to attribute his dip in 2012 and for the next five years to dodgy knees and trouble transitioning from clay to grass, then pointed out that he started reaching the SF again in 2018 with his knees feeling better. No way to know how true that is, but I'll take his word for it - and it certainly makes sense.

The Roddick interview is interesting in several ways, but he doesn't just "seem" to say that he lost all those years at Wimbledon to dodgy knees, he flat out says it. He has always said that. This isn't news. With painful knees, he couldn't get down on the ball, and couldn't move well enough. We fans always said that on these forums, so it was knowable, just that some of the old haters, like Darth and Front liked to say it was just proof that he'd fluked a couple of Wimbledon's. Anyway, Roddick likes grass as Nadal's best surface off of clay, too.

On the other hand, Rafa in that interview wasn't all about playing "what if." He also talked about Roger's crazy level in 2017, and even said what some Federer fans have said: that Roger's problem with him early on was due to a "tactical error" on Roger's part. I sort of think this has to do with Roger's arrogance: he just couldn't accept that his tried and true approach didn't work on Rafa, but he kept at it.

I also don't agree with Rafa that Roger's 2017 level was his best. I just think it was his best level against Rafa. Roger was a better player in 2004-07. 2017 was a very high level, though.

I think you're partly right that Rafa's statement that it was Roger's highest level in 2017 should be mitigated mostly by, "against Rafa," though Rafa did make an argument for some general adjustments, that were just late career smarts, like some serve improvements. As to waiting so long to adjust to Rafa's advantage against him on the BH, I find arrogance as a plausible excuse/answer for even several years of that, but eventually it becomes inexplicable. I do think he believed that he'd eventually bring Nadal to heel, but it didn't happen. Then, when he should have done something, maybe it was having Djokovic in the mix, too, that made it hard to make a big change? Dunno, but it sure took a long time. Maybe it finally worked because Rafa was as old as dirt by then, too.

 

[El Dude]

Margaret and I both have campaigned a lot over the years for the 2008 clay season as an extraordinarily high level, the best from Rafa, and of course she was there in person at RG. I know there are stats and etc., but Rafa fans were paying close attention, and the eye-test was pretty undeniable. One friend, unable to watch the first week of RG that year, asked me how Rafa was playing, and I said, "Like he invented a new game and didn't tell anyone else the rules."

Yeah, I agree that he unlocked a new level that year. Hard to say, though, if he was at his clay best, or just reached a new plateau. Meaning, he was already great in 05-07 but somehow got even better in 08. But was his 08 clay level really better than 10 and 13? Hard to say.

The Roddick interview is interesting in several ways, but he doesn't just "seem" to say that he lost all those years at Wimbledon to dodgy knees, he flat out says it. He has always said that. This isn't news. With painful knees, he couldn't get down on the ball, and couldn't move well enough. We fans always said that on these forums, so it was knowable, just that some of the old haters, like Darth and Front liked to say it was just proof that he'd fluked a couple of Wimbledon's. Anyway, Roddick likes grass as Nadal's best surface off of clay, too.

Yeah, that's silly (the "haters"). You can kinda fluke one Slam title, but not two - and more so, not five Wimbledon finals. I know titles are the thing, but in terms of level of play, I sometimes like to look at finals because reaching a final means you beat six other guys; winning the final means you just added one more guy to the list, and single matches can vary widely in terms of how well the two are playing at a time. The point being, Rafa reached five Wimbledon finals, which you can't fluke into - which is more than Andy Murray and the same as McEnroe whose grass pedigree no one denies.

I think you're partly right that Rafa's statement that it was Roger's highest level in 2017 should be mitigated mostly by, "against Rafa," though Rafa did make an argument for some general adjustments, that were just late career smarts, like some serve improvements. As to waiting so long to adjust to Rafa's advantage against him on the BH, I find arrogance as a plausible excuse/answer for even several years of that, but eventually it becomes inexplicable. I do think he believed that he'd eventually bring Nadal to heel, but it didn't happen. Then, when he should have done something, maybe it was having Djokovic in the mix, too, that made it hard to make a big change? Dunno, but it sure took a long time. Maybe it finally worked because Rafa was as old as dirt by then, too.

Roger was the least adaptable of the Big Three which I think was partially due to his unsurpassed dominance in 2004-07. In 2008 he dropped a solid level against everyone and a still-improving Rafa surpassed him. When Roger returned to #1 in 2009, maybe he thought he could build on that and return to 04-07 levels, or at least stay even with Rafa. So for a few years, he didn't change anything, but things become more problematic when Novak went supernova in 2011. If memory serves, he only really started trying to change his game in 2013, his worst year in over a decade. By the time Roger had recalibrated a bit in 2014, he barely played Rafa (just once in Rafa's two bad years) until 2017.

The point being, it isn't that weird when you look at the timeline more closely. As a Roger fan, I wish he had applied his 2017 approach earlier, but looking closely at the timeline, I can see why he didn't.

As for why it worked in 2017, certainly Rafa wasn't the same guy he'd been in 08-14. But neither was Roger, and there was no real sign he tried to change things up before then. Meaning, it wasn't like he had tried to shift things vs. Rafa in, say, 2010 and it didn't work, but it finally worked in 2017. He must have had some ah-ha moment and, coupled with his refreshed body after the break in late 2016, he dominated Rafa for a bit.

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I agree that he unlocked a new level that year. Hard to say, though, if he was at his clay best, or just reached a new plateau. Meaning, he was already great in 05-07 but somehow got even better in 08. But was his 08 clay level really better than 10 and 13? Hard to say.

Yeah, that's silly (the "haters"). You can kinda fluke one Slam title, but not two - and more so, not five Wimbledon finals. I know titles are the thing, but in terms of level of play, I sometimes like to look at finals because reaching a final means you beat six other guys; winning the final means you just added one more guy to the list, and single matches can vary widely in terms of how well the two are playing at a time. The point being, Rafa reached five Wimbledon finals, which you can't fluke into - which is more than Andy Murray and the same as McEnroe whose grass pedigree no one denies.

Roger was the least adaptable of the Big Three which I think was partially due to his unsurpassed dominance in 2004-07. In 2008 he dropped a solid level against everyone and a still-improving Rafa surpassed him. When Roger returned to #1 in 2009, maybe he thought he could build on that and return to 04-07 levels, or at least stay even with Rafa. So for a few years, he didn't change anything, but things become more problematic when Novak went supernova in 2011. If memory serves, he only really started trying to change his game in 2013, his worst year in over a decade. By the time Roger had recalibrated a bit in 2014, he barely played Rafa (just once in Rafa's two bad years) until 2017.

The point being, it isn't that weird when you look at the timeline more closely. As a Roger fan, I wish he had applied his 2017 approach earlier, but looking closely at the timeline, I can see why he didn't.

As for why it worked in 2017, certainly Rafa wasn't the same guy he'd been in 08-14. But neither was Roger, and there was no real sign he tried to change things up before then. Meaning, it wasn't like he had tried to shift things vs. Rafa in, say, 2010 and it didn't work, but it finally worked in 2017. He must have had some ah-ha moment and, coupled with his refreshed body after the break in late 2016, he dominated Rafa for a bit.

Poor Roddick! We'll never really know what his career would have been like if not for Roger being a HUGE obstacle time & time again! I personally was never impressed by A-Rod! He reminded me of my gen. of big servers, w/ an effective FH, & a BH that was good enough to keep him in the pt.! IDK how he was doing it outside of making those Wimbledon finals besides the other players being gutless! Roger wasn't doing anything spectacular to beat Andy; esp. in that '09 Wimb. Final! Roger blunted a major weapon by just "getting the ball back" on service returns against Andy! Back in the day, games went by quicker b/c big servers got a lot of free pts.! I had the same philosophy as Roger saying to myself, "get this ball back in the court" no matter what! Nothing frustrates a big server more than having to get involved in multiple pts. on serve fighting for his life!

Roger got back to #1 in '09, but it wasn't as impressive as all that! He had a lot of help, including Soderling upsetting Nadal in Paris that yr. allowing Roger his lone FO crown! Then Roddick choked away that '09 Wimb. Final! After Fed's career started so well w/ 3 seasons winning 3 majors, he still ended up w/ just 1 Career GS! He has to look up at Rafa's 2 CGS & Novak's 3 CGS! I still say Roger's legend would have been a lot higher today if he had retired in 2012! IMO, it just wasn't worth the 3 more majors won after 5+ yrs. in the wilderness as Djokovic & Nadal owned the tour! I think his legend w/ 17 Majors, retiring at the top would have been more noteworthy than being behind both Djokovic & Nadal; 24-22-20! He blew it IMO; esp. holding on that last season of mediocrity!

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I agree that he unlocked a new level that year. Hard to say, though, if he was at his clay best, or just reached a new plateau. Meaning, he was already great in 05-07 but somehow got even better in 08. But was his 08 clay level really better than 10 and 13? Hard to say.

Yeah, that's silly (the "haters"). You can kinda fluke one Slam title, but not two - and more so, not five Wimbledon finals. I know titles are the thing, but in terms of level of play, I sometimes like to look at finals because reaching a final means you beat six other guys; winning the final means you just added one more guy to the list, and single matches can vary widely in terms of how well the two are playing at a time. The point being, Rafa reached five Wimbledon finals, which you can't fluke into - which is more than Andy Murray and the same as McEnroe whose grass pedigree no one denies.

Roger was the least adaptable of the Big Three which I think was partially due to his unsurpassed dominance in 2004-07. In 2008 he dropped a solid level against everyone and a still-improving Rafa surpassed him. When Roger returned to #1 in 2009, maybe he thought he could build on that and return to 04-07 levels, or at least stay even with Rafa. So for a few years, he didn't change anything, but things become more problematic when Novak went supernova in 2011. If memory serves, he only really started trying to change his game in 2013, his worst year in over a decade. By the time Roger had recalibrated a bit in 2014, he barely played Rafa (just once in Rafa's two bad years) until 2017.

The point being, it isn't that weird when you look at the timeline more closely. As a Roger fan, I wish he had applied his 2017 approach earlier, but looking closely at the timeline, I can see why he didn't.

As for why it worked in 2017, certainly Rafa wasn't the same guy he'd been in 08-14. But neither was Roger, and there was no real sign he tried to change things up before then. Meaning, it wasn't like he had tried to shift things vs. Rafa in, say, 2010 and it didn't work, but it finally worked in 2017. He must have had some ah-ha moment and, coupled with his refreshed body after the break in late 2016, he dominated Rafa for a bit.

It IS possible that '08 Rafa on clay was a new step up, and so perhaps more shocking. I had rather thought to say perhaps we got inured of it, though that can't possibly be the right word.

I did think that Roger toyed with the idea of that bigger racquet head for some years, but insisted he couldn't get used to it, until he finally did. It's a lot of foot-dragging, but you make a decent argument. I also think a reason he was the most "stubborn" isn't just his 2004-07, though it's related. I think it is in part because he was first. In that documentary, "Strokes of Genius," based on the Wertheim book, and mostly about the Wimbledon final, but also an excuse to examine the Fedal rival, Roger says, "I didn't want a rival. I couldn't see why I would." For Rafa and Novak, there was never a question that they already had one, or two. For them, resisting the idea was not an option.

 

[El Dude]

Poor Roddick! We'll never really know what his career would have been like if not for Roger being a HUGE obstacle time & time again! I personally was never impressed by A-Rod! He reminded me of my gen. of big servers, w/ an effective FH, & a BH that was good enough to keep him in the pt.! IDK how he was doing it outside of making those Wimbledon finals besides the other players being gutless! Roger wasn't doing anything spectacular to beat Andy; esp. in that '09 Wimb. Final! Roger blunted a major weapon by just "getting the ball back" on service returns against Andy! Back in the day, games went by quicker b/c big servers got a lot of free pts.! I had the same philosophy as Roger saying to myself, "get this ball back in the court" no matter what! Nothing frustrates a big server more than having to get involved in multiple pts. on serve fighting for his life!

Roger got back to #1 in '09, but it wasn't as impressive as all that! He had a lot of help, including Soderling upsetting Nadal in Paris that yr. allowing Roger his lone FO crown! Then Roddick choked away that '09 Wimb. Final! After Fed's career started so well w/ 3 seasons winning 3 majors, he still ended up w/ just 1 Career GS! He has to look up at Rafa's 2 CGS & Novak's 3 CGS! I still say Roger's legend would have been a lot higher today if he had retired in 2012! IMO, it just wasn't worth the 3 more majors won after 5+ yrs. in the wilderness as Djokovic & Nadal owned the tour! I think his legend w/ 17 Majors, retiring at the top would have been more noteworthy than being behind both Djokovic & Nadal; 24-22-20! He blew it IMO; esp. holding on that last season of mediocrity!

 

[Fiero425]

Last gasps of a dying era of tennis history! Approaching 70 I just don't care enuf about the Next Gen.! I barely pay attn., musing more about past eras of our sport! I'm repeating myself here & on other platforms b/c I'm stuck! I'm sorry to say TENNIS is a JOKE! I already fell off the game a bit due to the mindless aggression perpetrated on the game by both men & women! The drama going on in the news & behind the scenes w/ Jannik has to give us all pause! The players are openly talking about this even though a shady ruling & punishment finally came down! The drama continues!

I long for the exhib./comp. of the World Invitational Tennis Classic where they took the top 4 men & women playing in all the disciplines partnering up making it possible for anyone to win the Grand prize! It was lazy tennis w/ chessboard play on clay back in the '70's! I'll take that over today's drek!

 

[El Dude]

Last gasps of a dying era of tennis history! Approaching 70 I just don't care enuf about the Next Gen.! I barely pay attn., musing more about past eras of our sport! I'm repeating myself here & on other platforms b/c I'm stuck! I'm sorry to say TENNIS is a JOKE! I already fell off the game a bit due to the mindless aggression perpetrated on the game by both men & women! The drama going on in the news & behind the scenes w/ Jannik has to give us all pause! The players are openly talking about this even though a shady ruling & punishment finally came down! The drama continues!

I long for the exhib./comp. of the World Invitational Tennis Classic where they took the top 4 men & women playing in all the disciplines partnering up making it possible for anyone to win the Grand prize! It was lazy tennis w/ chessboard play on clay back in the '70's! I'll take that over today's drek!

Well, despite giving you a hard time (all in good fun), I somewhat agree. I mean, I sort of see our ("Western") culture as in decline overall. I haven't decided as to whether this extends to tennis, but I think it is a valid perspective that the Big Three were the final hurrah of the Golden Age of Open Era tennis.

But...I'm excited about the new era. It is more interesting, imo, than most o the long and overly drawn out last decade or so of the Big Three era. We have two (possibly three) young superstars who look like all-time greats; we have a nice range of lesser elite to second tier guys, a lot of whom are good enough to upset the top guys. We also have more promising youngsters than we've had in 15+ years. Not to mention that over on the women's side, the new "biggish three" is being disrupted by a 17-year old. So I think it is an exciting time to follow tennis.