The Blossoming Greatness of Carlos Alcaraz

[El Dude]

Young Carlos just set himself apart from the garden variety "near greats": He won his second Slam in a season, which for bonus points, was the very rare "Channel Slam." But consider the players who have won 2+ Slams in a year, chronologically:

Rod Laver (1*): 1969 (4)
John Newcombe (1**): 1973
Jimmy Connors (2): 1974 (3), 1982
Bjorn Borg (3): 1978, 1979, 1980
John McEnroe (2): 1981, 1984
Ivan Lendl (2): 1985, 1986
Mats Wilander (1): 1988
Boris Becker (1): 1989
Jim Courier (1): 1992
Pete Sampras (4): 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997
Andre Agassi (1): 1999
Roger Federer (6): 2004 (3), 2005, 2006 (3), 2007 (3), 2009, 2017
Rafael Nadal (6): 2008, 2010 (3), 2013, 2017, 2019, 2022
Novak Djokovic (7): 2011 (3), 2015 (3), 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021 (3), 2023 (3)
Carlos Alcaraz (1): 2024

*Laver also won all four in 1962, plus two of three Pro Slams in '64 and '66, and all three in '67.
**Newcombe also won two amateur Slams in 1967.

The worst player on that list is Jim Courier, who played like and all-time great for three years, then like Richard Gasquet for the rest of his career.

But the big jump comes with two such years, which has only been done by (Laver), Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, and the Big Three. Meaning, the 9 or 10 best players of the Open Era. It sort of is that clear-cut: the two multi-Slam season players are the top 10 of the Open Era.

At 21, it seems rather likely that Alcaraz makes that 10 or 11. Of course after '92, there was no reason to think that Jim Courier--then just 22 years old--only had one more Slam in him. T

Or to put it another way, Alcaraz already has 20% of Roger's Slam total before the age Roger was when he won his first Slam.

 

[Moxie]

How many of those did it at 21? Laver and Borg, I'd guess. Who else? Becker? Wilander?

 

[El Dude]

Lave was 23-24 when he won his first grand salami, as Wilander when he won 3. Borg turned 22 in June of the year he first one two, Rafa as well. So no one, basically.

EDIT, oh wait, Becker. He turned 22 in November of 1989, so was 21 when he won those two Slams.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Incredible to see Nadal with 6 times winning 2+ slams in a season when he has been injured so many times and has had tons of seasons where he didn't play all 4 slams (2006, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024). That's TEN seasons and that's not including the years where he had to withdraw during slams due to injury or was making a come back & working his way back into form). Djokovic meanwhile didn't play all 4 slams only in THREE seasons (2017, 2020, 2022). He was just lucky to be born as an elastic man. The only rival GOATdal has ever had is his own health, otherwise he would have left everyone in the dust a long time ago.

 

[El Dude]

Just a reminder. Most Grand Slam titles before turning 22:

5 Borg
4 Alcaraz, Becker, Nadal, Wilander

Alcaraz has two more Slams before turning 22. 1-2 and he catches Borg; 2-2 and he passes him.

 

[Moxie]

Just a reminder. Most Grand Slam titles before turning 22:

5 Borg
4 Alcaraz, Becker, Nadal, Wilander

Alcaraz has two more Slams before turning 22. 1-2 and he catches Borg; 2-2 and he passes him.

Big ask, but it would be pretty huge. Good to be reminded. And as Margaret has mentioned, if he wins the AO next year, he has the Career Slam at 21.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a chart that illustrates where Alcaraz is relative to the greats, as far as Slams are concerned:

That's through age 21. As you can see, Roger didn't even win his first until his last age 21 Slam. Novak only had 1 Slam, and Lendl didn't win his first until 24, Agassi at 22, Murray at 25.

Note, the above chart is there age at the beginning of a Slam - so Rafa has his a bit early, as his birthday usually likes within Roland Garros.

Here's another fun one: Alcaraz has won 4 of the last 7 Slams he's played in. No player has done that through age 21.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Interestingly, ESPN just did an article about this on Carlos Alcaraz: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_...ree-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic

In short, I think 2005-2007 Rafa is the more consistent and dominant player than 2022-2024 Carlos. The only thing that Carlos may have over Rafa is the slams, but even then, Rafa had to play peak Fed. Carlos just has some very bad losses at the lower level events. Rafa dominated at those he entered. I don't know if Carlos will have the longevity to catch Rafa's 22 slams, but one thing I know is for certain is that I can never see Carlos winning 10 or 11 times in a season the way Rafa did, and Rafa did it straight from the box in 2005.

 

[El Dude]

Interestingly, ESPN just did an article about this on Carlos Alcaraz: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_...ree-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic

In short, I think 2005-2007 Rafa is the more consistent and dominant player than 2022-2024 Carlos. The only thing that Carlos may have over Rafa is the slams, but even then, Rafa had to play peak Fed. Carlos just has some very bad losses at the lower level events. Rafa dominated at those he entered. I don't know if Carlos will have the longevity to catch Rafa's 22 slams, but one thing I know is for certain is that I can never see Carlos winning 10 or 11 times in a season the way Rafa did, and Rafa did it straight from the box in 2005.

I think Rafa was far more dominant on clay, but Carlos has been a lot better on grass, and probably equal on hards.

For whatever reason, Carlos isn't as dominant in smaller tournaments as he's been at Slams and, to a lesser extent, Masters. He really seems to be a product of the current era: Huge emphasis on Slams, sees 250s and 500s as warm-ups/tune-ups, with Masters being more like "testing your mettle" on route to Slams.

Rafa's 2005 clay season was ridiculous: he won 8 of 10 tournaments he played, only losing at two ATP 250s. Buenos Aires was particularly weird: he bageled Gaston Gaudio, was bageled back, then lost the decider as a breadstick (6-0 0-6 1-6). Of course that was in February before clay season proper.

 

[El Dude]

A comparison:

Their three years are remarkably similar. Rafa was a lot better in the first year with 11 titles, including 4 Masters (2 for Alcaraz), 3 ATP 500s (2 for Alcaraz) and 3 ATP 250s (none for Alcaraz). You can also see that Rafa played a lot more ATP 250s, but Alcaraz more ATP 500s. Rafa's win percentage is also significantly higher.

Alcaraz was a bit better in the second year, but they are very close: both with 1 Slam, 2 Masters, 2 ATP 500s, and a SF at the Tour Finals. Alcaraz has an ATP 250 and reached the final of Cincinnati, whereas Rafa only reached the QF. Very close, though.

Too soon to say with the third year - as Alcaraz still has the US Open, potentially two Masters, the ATP Finals, and possibly an ATP 500/250 or two. You'd think Alcaraz would be higher in PEP relative to Rafa, with two Slam wins, but he's done fairly poorly (by his standards) at Masters: just the one title, and no other result beyond the QF. He's gone out in the first round or two at his two ATP 500s, also.

 

[El Dude]

I will also add that there's a subtly different trajectory for both. Rafa stormed the world in 2005, but dropped back a bit in 2006, though he did better at Wimbledon and the US Open and played in the Tour Finals. But it was basically a consolidation year. 2007 was too, though he went slightly deeper in losses; in other words, he was more consistent off clay, raising the floor on his performance. He broke through to a new level in 2008, probably his third best year overall.

Alcaraz is on a steady upward trajectory: he was better in 2023 than 2022, and looks to be better this year than last - depending upon how he plays for the last few months. But he's on course to surpass his 2023, if you go by PEP: he needs just 7 more to equal his total.