Top 5 in 2029

[mrzz]

I was going to coment something on the AO thread about the Alcaraz x Djokovic match (which I could not see it entirely, but I saw enough I guess), but what I was going to post fits exactly here.

This match is exactly what makes me suspicious that Alcaraz might be some kind of supernova, burns very brightly but does not last that long. When he is on, he is truly a phenomenal player, but in days like today, something is clearly missing. I hear people saying quite often that he does not have a plan B. I disagree completely. He is a smart kid, a player with high tennis IQ, has basically all the shots, and a great coaching staff. He definitely has a plan B, C and D. That is not the problem.

The impression I get watching him play, in either good or bad days, is that he, even more than other top players, needs everything in place to perform at or near his peak: Physical condition, motivation, focus, mental stability, technical details. With him, everything seems to be in unstable equilibrium. A small variation in any of those aspects aparently puts him off more than the rest of his (top) peers. It strikes me as something fragile (which is odd, given his body strength and stamina). Some sort of a tennis "house of cards".

 

[Moxie]

I was going to coment something on the AO thread about the Alcaraz x Djokovic match (which I could not see it entirely, but I saw enough I guess), but what I was going to post fits exactly here.

This match is exactly what makes me suspicious that Alcaraz might be some kind of supernova, burns very brightly but does not last that long. When he is on, he is truly a phenomenal player, but in days like today, something is clearly missing. I hear people saying quite often that he does not have a plan B. I disagree completely. He is a smart kid, a player with high tennis IQ, has basically all the shots, and a great coaching staff. He definitely has a plan B, C and D. That is not the problem.

The impression I get watching him play, in either good or bad days, is that he, even more than other top players, needs everything in place to perform at or near his peak: Physical condition, motivation, focus, mental stability, technical details. With him, everything seems to be in unstable equilibrium. A small variation in any of those aspects aparently puts him off more than the rest of his (top) peers. It strikes me as something fragile (which is odd, given his body strength and stamina). Some sort of a tennis "house of cards".

I haven't seen the match today, but I have to disagree with your above conclusion, basically making Alcaraz a temperamental puff-ball, esp. compared with all of the temperamental, underperforming top puff balls out there. 4 Majors on 3 surfaces by age 21. This doesn't imply a player who needs everything "just so" in order to perform. It does, however, imply a more "Occam's razor" possibility: that being at the top from such a young age brings a lot of pressures that need to be learned, also, and, ok, he played a GOAT today. I don't mind that you predict Alcaraz won't be top 5 in 5 years, and you could be right. But I don't buy this line of reasoning.

 

[mrzz]

basically making Alcaraz a temperamental puff-bal

I really don't know how in the world you could read that from my post

 

[Moxie]

I really don't know how in the world you could read that from my post

Then interpret this for me:

"The impression I get watching him play, in either good or bad days, is that he, even more than other top players, needs everything in place to perform at or near his peak: Physical condition, motivation, focus, mental stability, technical details. With him, everything seems to be in unstable equilibrium. A small variation in any of those aspects aparently puts him off more than the rest of his (top) peers. It strikes me as something fragile (which is odd, given his body strength and stamina). Some sort of a tennis "house of cards"."

 

[El Dude]

My interpretation of what mrzz is saying is not that Alcaraz is a "temperamental puffball," but that numerous factors have to align for him to play his best, and if not, there is significant drop-off. Certainly his results last year support that: two Slam wins, a Masters title, Olympics Silver, but didn't make it past the QF of any other of the seven big titles he played. Compare that to Jannik, who reached the QF or better of every big title he played, and SF or better in all but three.

When Carlos is on, he's as good as anyone. But last year at least, that wasn't always the case.

Anyhow, an interesting hypothesis. Don't know if it is true or not, but his variable results are definitely worth noting. Or to put it visually:

The heights are how many matches were won at a tournament, while the widths are how big the tournament was - all big tournaments have an abbreviation. Oh, the little gray squares mean the player went winless at a tournament.

Anyhow, the chart illustrates that Alcaraz had a more "all or nothing" approach -- in other words, he was inconsistent. He didn't fare terribly outside of his titles, but he wasn't all that impressive, either, with only one other final (Olympics).

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues. In truth, what may decide whether Alcaraz is an inner circle great or just a "garden variety great" is whether or not he can become more consistent across the tour, rather than just great about a third of the year and a second tier guy for the rest of the year.

He was a bit more consistent in 2023, with more SF and F appearances (and losses), so maybe 2024 was a bit of a weird year for him. We shall see, I guess.

 

[mrzz]

Then interpret this for me:

"The impression I get watching him play, in either good or bad days, is that he, even more than other top players, needs everything in place to perform at or near his peak: Physical condition, motivation, focus, mental stability, technical details. With him, everything seems to be in unstable equilibrium. A small variation in any of those aspects aparently puts him off more than the rest of his (top) peers. It strikes me as something fragile (which is odd, given his body strength and stamina). Some sort of a tennis "house of cards"."

You are usually too defensive when someone has an opinion which is not exactly yours. I never said, in this post or previous ones, that Alcaraz is not a great player. I never said, in this post or previous ones, that I am sure Alcaraz will drop off quickly. What I said is I think that is possible. It is obviously possible for anyone, and I get the impression that in his case it is a bit more likely than with his other *top* peers.

Everything in my post is relative -- relative to other top players. I don't think I need to stress this, but of course I am comparing him to other #1's, multiple major winners to say the least. I never disputed he is part of that group. For some reason you think I am saying he is just like Tsitsipas...

I guess that the words "unstable equilibrium" triggered you into thinking that I said he is mentally unstable. Simply not...

By the way I hate to discuss Alcaraz using the phone. Damned auto correct keeps changing his name to Alcatraz. Can't wait till he crashes and burns so we can talk about somebody else!.

 

[Moxie]

You are usually too defensive when someone has an opinion which is not exactly yours. I never said, in this post or previous ones, that Alcaraz is not a great player. I never said, in this post or previous ones, that I am sure Alcaraz will drop off quickly. What I said is I think that is possible. It is obviously possible for anyone, and I get the impression that in his case it is a bit more likely than with his other *top* peers.

Everything in my post is relative -- relative to other top players. I don't think I need to stress this, but of course I am comparing him to other #1's, multiple major winners to say the least. I never disputed he is part of that group. For some reason you think I am saying he is just like Tsitsipas...

I guess that the words "unstable equilibrium" triggered you into thinking that I said he is mentally unstable. Simply not...

By the way I hate to discuss Alcaraz using the phone. Damned auto correct keeps changing his name to Alcatraz. Can't wait till he crashes and burns so we can talk about somebody else!.

I don't feel in the least defensive about Alcaraz. I just disagree that he needs all the stars to align...given what he's done. He seems more adaptable than that to me. I just don't agree with your particular conclusion about his limitations as you drew them above. I don't think that debating or disagreeing is being "defensive," and I should think you'd be the last person to object to it.

 

[Moxie]

My interpretation of what mrzz is saying is not that Alcaraz is a "temperamental puffball," but that numerous factors have to align for him to play his best, and if not, there is significant drop-off. Certainly his results last year support that: two Slam wins, a Masters title, Olympics Silver, but didn't make it past the QF of any other of the seven big titles he played. Compare that to Jannik, who reached the QF or better of every big title he played, and SF or better in all but three.

When Carlos is on, he's as good as anyone. But last year at least, that wasn't always the case.

Anyhow, an interesting hypothesis. Don't know if it is true or not, but his variable results are definitely worth noting. Or to put it visually:
View attachment 9944
The heights are how many matches were won at a tournament, while the widths are how big the tournament was - all big tournaments have an abbreviation. Oh, the little gray squares mean the player went winless at a tournament.

Anyhow, the chart illustrates that Alcaraz had a more "all or nothing" approach -- in other words, he was inconsistent. He didn't fare terribly outside of his titles, but he wasn't all that impressive, either, with only one other final (Olympics).

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues. In truth, what may decide whether Alcaraz is an inner circle great or just a "garden variety great" is whether or not he can become more consistent across the tour, rather than just great about a third of the year and a second tier guy for the rest of the year.

He was a bit more consistent in 2023, with more SF and F appearances (and losses), so maybe 2024 was a bit of a weird year for him. We shall see, I guess.

Yes, but that was just last year. And Jannick had a great 2024. And Carlos turned 21. But, OK, inconsistent. How was his 2023?

 

[mrzz]

My interpretation of what mrzz is saying is not that Alcaraz is a "temperamental puffball," but that numerous factors have to align for him to play his best, and if not, there is significant drop-off. Certainly his results last year support that: two Slam wins, a Masters title, Olympics Silver, but didn't make it past the QF of any other of the seven big titles he played. Compare that to Jannik, who reached the QF or better of every big title he played, and SF or better in all but three.

When Carlos is on, he's as good as anyone. But last year at least, that wasn't always the case.

Anyhow, an interesting hypothesis. Don't know if it is true or not, but his variable results are definitely worth noting. Or to put it visually:
View attachment 9944
The heights are how many matches were won at a tournament, while the widths are how big the tournament was - all big tournaments have an abbreviation. Oh, the little gray squares mean the player went winless at a tournament.

Anyhow, the chart illustrates that Alcaraz had a more "all or nothing" approach -- in other words, he was inconsistent. He didn't fare terribly outside of his titles, but he wasn't all that impressive, either, with only one other final (Olympics).

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues. In truth, what may decide whether Alcaraz is an inner circle great or just a "garden variety great" is whether or not he can become more consistent across the tour, rather than just great about a third of the year and a second tier guy for the rest of the year.

He was a bit more consistent in 2023, with more SF and F appearances (and losses), so maybe 2024 was a bit of a weird year for him. We shall see, I guess.

Yes, he was a bit more consistent in 2023. But was a match in 2023 that first called my attention, or better, that created in me this impression I get (again, I don't dispute it is a impression). It was a major final or semi against Djokovic, he was leading I guess 2 sets to love and suddenly had a huge drop off, ended up losing the match. He had cramps, but from the get go it seemed it was not just that. Or, even if it was just cramps, it was so extreme that it caught anyone's attention.

 

[mrzz]

I don't feel in the least defensive about Alcaraz. I just disagree that he needs all the stars to align...given what he's done. He seems more adaptable than that to me. I just don't agree with your particular conclusion about his limitations as you drew them above. I don't think that debating or disagreeing is being "defensive," and I should think you'd be the last person to object to it.

I said myself that he is adaptable, when I disagreed with a popular view that he has no plan B. I say that you are defensive, in this case, because you keep putting words in my mouth. But I always thought you would be a great defense lawyer (I am not kidding). I would surely hire you, specially if I was guilty...

 

[El Dude]

Yes, but that was just last year. And Jannick had a great 2024. And Carlos turned 21. But, OK, inconsistent. How was his 2023?

Well, in my post I said that he was more consistent in 2023. I'm also not jumping to conclusions from 2024, but it is an interesting pattern, no? All I'm saying is: "Stick a pin in it, and let's see if it was an anomaly or a pattern going forward."

Either way, he's great and will continue to be great. For me the question is not about his greatness, but both whether he has another level (which I think he does) and how he'll be playing 5-10 years from now. I fully expect him to be one of the top 2 or 3 players for the next half decade and rack up another half a dozen Slams at least. I just think mrzz's view is interesting when considering the long-term. What set the Big Three apart wasn't as much their absolute peak, but their sustained primes. They all hit various bumps and refashioned themselves. As I'm guessing you'd agree, the Rafa of 2017-22 wasn't quite as good as the Rafa of 2008-13, but he was still better than almost everyone else. Or Roger, as he started losing bits and pieces, was still better than all but two other GOATs in their primes. Novak, rinse and repeat.