2023 Wimbledon F: Alcaraz vs. Djokovic

[MargaretMcAleer]

How soon we forget. People have been resisting comparisons to all of the Big 3, (though the mountain of ink being spilled over them now should put that to rest.) But no one is saying that Charly is exactly Roger, and not Roger in 2004-06. Roger wasn't even "Roger" when he was 20. Only Rafa was a proven commodity at 20, and he didn't have the complete game of Charly.

That is why I am not going to compare Alcaraz to Roger, Rafa and Novak, of course there are aspects of his game that can be compared to the big 3, he is only 20 years old and he does have a wonderful coach in JCF, who I think to date has done a wonderful job in preparing Carlos for tournaments and also has kept him grounded, to me he could not have a better coach like JCF.

 

[Fiero425]

I seem to recall endless debates on young Novak’s fitness, physical toughness and endurance back in the day,

Well they have to kvetch about something! Novak was threatening the supremacy of Fedal and they felt they needed to undercut him some way! Now after he's eliminated them thru injury & retirement, he's a cheater, bounces the ball too much B4 serving, & takes strategic bathroom brks! It's pathetic in so many ways! None of this crap w/b acknowledged yrs. from now except by the haters who write books to malign the guy!

 

[El Dude]

How soon we forget. People have been resisting comparisons to all of the Big 3, (though the mountain of ink being spilled over them now should put that to rest.) But no one is saying that Charly is exactly Roger, and not Roger in 2004-06. Roger wasn't even "Roger" when he was 20. Only Rafa was a proven commodity at 20, and he didn't have the complete game of Charly.

I was just thinking something similar, and in relation to Pat Cash's comment in an article up-thread, about "who is going to challenge him the next few years?"

Roger was largely un-challenged in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. Sure, it wasn't until 2005 that he started doing deep at Roland Garros, and of course by then Rafa had risen. And Rafa did challenge him, obviously, from that point on, but in terms of reigning over the tour, Roger was was dominant as anyone has ever been.

But like Roger, in 2004, no one knew that Rafa would be the player he became just a year later (and then more fully in 2008).

Similarly no one knew at the end of 2002 that Hewitt was done winning Slams, or Roddick in 2003. When Roger emerged more fully in 2004, I'm guessing people (especially the players!) would have been surprised to think that his generation would be entirely swallowed (except for that lone Safin Slam in 2005) by Fedal.

So while I hear Cash's point, two things make me pause. One, tennis is an evolving field; two, players develop at difference paces.

I do think Alcaraz will get even better and be the player to beat in the foreseeable future, but what I question is that he'll have anything like Roger's reign in 2004-07. Not only will Novak still be around for the next year or two (who is much better now than the Agassi of 2004-06), but we don't know how much more other young players will develop, especially Rune, but also Sinner and even guys like Korda, Musetti, FAA, and pups like Shelton, Fils and Van Assche. Presumably all of those guys have further development ahead of them.

Alcaraz, like Rafa, is an early and quick bloomer. Some greats were like that - Rafa, Becker, Wilander, Borg and Mac in particular - but some took a bit longer to bake. Even Jannik Sinner isn't really far off from where Roger was at his age. Sinner turns 22 next month; that is the equivalent of Roger in 2003, when he won his first Slam. Their Elo are kind of similar, too (And no, I don't think Sinner will be as good as Roger! Just using him as an example of how differently players develop).

And I personally still hope that Holger Rune will be a worthy opponent for Alcaraz. To me he has scary potential.

 

[El Dude]

That is why I am not going to compare Alcaraz to Roger, Rafa and Novak, of course there are aspects of his game that can be compared to the big 3, he is only 20 years old and he does have a wonderful coach in JCF, who I think to date has done a wonderful job in preparing Carlos for tournaments and also has kept him grounded, to me he could not have a better coach like JCF.

To augment this a bit, I'm reminded of what @Kieran often says, that Slam wins and total count has a lot to do with opportunity. Different factors enabled their ridiculous Slam totals - not just immense talent, but the drive to keep going and, I think, each other.

Meaning, even if Carlos becomes as good as they were (which I am not saying anything about, either way), the context might not facilitate him winning 20+ Slams. Maybe he's burnt out at 10. Or maybe his younger generation is much better than those that followed the Big Three. Etc, etc.

 

[Moxie]

I thing you’re right about the tentativeness, especially after the first set. I never saw Novak look so frustrated against a non-3. He also physically looked his age too, which he can’t help, but for the first time he looked old and tired to me. Haggard, at times, which is something we’ve seen in last days Rafa and Roger…

I hate to kick a man when he's down, but I agree with you and @don_fabio that it did surprise me by looking old and tired late in that match.

As to the tentativeness after the first set, I get shot down when I say this, but I have always thought that Novak got tentative and protective of his lead v. Stan in the 2015 RG final after he won the first set. Even a Novak fan said on the live chat at the time, after the first set: "Novak is not playing to win now...he's playing not to lose." Not taking anything away from Stan, but I felt that Novak was also underestimating him a bit, and his ability to hold his head and his nerve for 3 more sets...to red-line his game for 3 sets. But when Stan did just that, Djokovic, who wanted that French title, which would have been his first, started to feel his own nerves. When he realized he'd have to be more aggressive about grabbing it, it was too late. By then, Stan was a runaway train. I felt this match was perhaps similar, in that sense, of Novak underestimating his opponent just a bit, protecting his lead and counting on pulling it out when he needed to, but not really "bringing it." Djokovic couldn't find the gas pedal when he needed it, having waited too long to use it. Total credit to Stan in that RG match for taking it to Novak, and same for Alcaraz on Sunday, especially pulling it off in 5.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

To augment this a bit, I'm reminded of what @Kieran often says, that Slam wins and total count has a lot to do with opportunity. Different factors enabled their ridiculous Slam totals - not just immense talent, but the drive to keep going and, I think, each other.

Meaning, even if Carlos becomes as good as they were (which I am not saying anything about, either way), the context might not facilitate him winning 20+ Slams. Maybe he's burnt out at 10. Or maybe his younger generation is much better than those that followed the Big Three. Etc, etc.

I will wait and see, at this point I am not going to state how many GS he will win, he is just 20 years old, things can happen in our game
I will just sit back and enjoy the tennis Alcaraz brings to the tennis court.

 

[Moxie]

I was just thinking something similar, and in relation to Pat Cash's comment in an article up-thread, about "who is going to challenge him the next few years?"

Roger was largely un-challenged in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. Sure, it wasn't until 2005 that he started doing deep at Roland Garros, and of course by then Rafa had risen. And Rafa did challenge him, obviously, from that point on, but in terms of reigning over the tour, Roger was was dominant as anyone has ever been.

But like Roger, in 2004, no one knew that Rafa would be the player he became just a year later (and then more fully in 2008).

Similarly no one knew at the end of 2002 that Hewitt was done winning Slams, or Roddick in 2003. When Roger emerged more fully in 2004, I'm guessing people (especially the players!) would have been surprised to think that his generation would be entirely swallowed (except for that lone Safin Slam in 2005) by Fedal.

If you're going back to 2003 when Roger started winning Majors, please don't forget the random RG win by Gaudio in 2004, which was far less likely than Safin's one in 2005.

So while I hear Cash's point, two things make me pause. One, tennis is an evolving field; two, players develop at difference paces.

I do think Alcaraz will get even better and be the player to beat in the foreseeable future, but what I question is that he'll have anything like Roger's reign in 2004-07. Not only will Novak still be around for the next year or two (who is much better now than the Agassi of 2004-06), but we don't know how much more other young players will develop, especially Rune, but also Sinner and even guys like Korda, Musetti, FAA, and pups like Shelton, Fils and Van Assche. Presumably all of those guys have further development ahead of them.

I don't count Novak out yet, and I think that there are interesting players coming up. I don't think Alcaraz will have a clear field...certainly not like Roger in his early days, or Novak in the recent years.

Alcaraz, like Rafa, is an early and quick bloomer. Some greats were like that - Rafa, Becker, Wilander, Borg and Mac in particular - but some took a bit longer to bake. Even Jannik Sinner isn't really far off from where Roger was at his age. Sinner turns 22 next month; that is the equivalent of Roger in 2003, when he won his first Slam. Their Elo are kind of similar, too (And no, I don't think Sinner will be as good as Roger! Just using him as an example of how differently players develop).

And I personally still hope that Holger Rune will be a worthy opponent for Alcaraz. To me he has scary potential.

If you're asking, I think Rune is the most likely big rival to Alcaraz, when Novak and Rafa quit, especially. I hope I'm right, too, because they have the fire and ice of McEnroe v. Borg, of Nadal v. Federer, the black hat v. white hat of Djokovic v. Fedal. I do still hope Sinner finds his best game, too. Plus, lots of players to be named later.

 

[Jelenafan]

I was just thinking something similar, and in relation to Pat Cash's comment in an article up-thread, about "who is going to challenge him the next few years?"

Roger was largely un-challenged in 2004-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. Sure, it wasn't until 2005 that he started doing deep at Roland Garros, and of course by then Rafa had risen. And Rafa did challenge him, obviously, from that point on, but in terms of reigning over the tour, Roger was was dominant as anyone has ever been.

But like Roger, in 2004, no one knew that Rafa would be the player he became just a year later (and then more fully in 2008).

Similarly no one knew at the end of 2002 that Hewitt was done winning Slams, or Roddick in 2003. When Roger emerged more fully in 2004, I'm guessing people (especially the players!) would have been surprised to think that his generation would be entirely swallowed (except for that lone Safin Slam in 2005) by Fedal.

So while I hear Cash's point, two things make me pause. One, tennis is an evolving field; two, players develop at difference paces.

I do think Alcaraz will get even better and be the player to beat in the foreseeable future, but what I question is that he'll have anything like Roger's reign in 2004-07. Not only will Novak still be around for the next year or two (who is much better now than the Agassi of 2004-06), but we don't know how much more other young players will develop, especially Rune, but also Sinner and even guys like Korda, Musetti, FAA, and pups like Shelton, Fils and Van Assche. Presumably all of those guys have further development ahead of them.

Alcaraz, like Rafa, is an early and quick bloomer. Some greats were like that - Rafa, Becker, Wilander, Borg and Mac in particular - but some took a bit longer to bake. Even Jannik Sinner isn't really far off from where Roger was at his age. Sinner turns 22 next month; that is the equivalent of Roger in 2003, when he won his first Slam. Their Elo are kind of similar, too (And no, I don't think Sinner will be as good as Roger! Just using him as an example of how differently players develop).

And I personally still hope that Holger Rune will be a worthy opponent for Alcaraz. To me he has scary potential.

In a way its good for Holger that Carlos is such a freaky beast so young : here the Danish Angel just turned 20, has 3 Slam quarters, 1 Masters win, 2 Masters finals , a winning head2head versus top 10 (including 2 wins over Novak & all the other youngsters) AND is a stone’s throw away of reaching # 4 ranking (depending on how Casper Ruud does he could slide up #5 this week) and yet its all understandably Carlos, Carlos , Carlos ,as it should be.

So the extra attention & pressure that would otherwise be on his shoulders is not quite there as it normally would be. And yes, pressure is pressue and little Holger will soon enough feel the weight of higher expectations.

 

[Moxie]

In a way its good for Holger that Carlos is such a freaky beast so young : here the Danish Angel just turned 20, has 3 Slam quarters, 1 Masters win, 2 Masters finals , a winning head2head versus top 10 (including 2 wins over Novak & all the other youngsters) AND is a stone’s throw away of reaching # 4 ranking (depending on how Casper Ruud does he could slide up #5 this week) and yet its all understandably Carlos, Carlos , Carlos ,as it should be.

So the extra attention & pressure that would otherwise be on his shoulders is not quite there as it normally would be. And yes, pressure is pressue and little Holger will soon enough feel the weight of higher expectations.

I think it's also good for him to see his childhood rival doing so well. He's a competitive bastard, I'm absolutely sure of that. We have said that the Big 3 drove each other to be better. I'm counting on Holger to be just the guy to be motivated by this, now, and going forward. (Where is that Nordic fighter GIF when I need it?)

PS: It might help if you'd stop calling him "Little Holger."

 

[the AntiPusher]

So yet another record, I believe Carlos at age 20 is the youngest ATP player in the Open era to hold the USO and W Slams simultaneously.

Lleyton Hewitt was 21.

Also, stopped and prevented Novak from his coveted fettish to capture the calendar SLAM.. yippee

 

[Fiero425]

Also, stopped and prevented Novak from his coveted fettish to capture the calendar SLAM.. yippee

Just as well! We don't need to watch & listen to people trying to undermine the achievement! We're in a weak era according to them which is the reason Novak's still above the fray! The "if's" will be thrown about so much we'll have to duck! I'm just happy he got that FO!

 

[Moxie]

Also, stopped and prevented Novak from his coveted fettish to capture the calendar SLAM.. yippee

Not so much a "fetish" as an ambition, but proving once again why it's so hard. Even Serena couldn't do it, and we thought she would. That tweet above from Laver, congratulating Alcaraz? He was having an gin and tonic and telling himself...it's still only me!

 

[Vince Evert]

someone's been able to put the complete final over on youtube in two part and in 1080p resolution too, bless 'em.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think it's also good for him to see his childhood rival doing so well. He's a competitive bastard, I'm absolutely sure of that. We have said that the Big 3 drove each other to be better. I'm counting on Holger to be just the guy to be motivated by this, now, and going forward. (Where is that Nordic fighter GIF when I need it?)

PS: It might help if you'd stop calling him "Little Holger."

LOL

I will stop calling him “Little Holger” when a 2 time Slam champ is no longer referred to as “Carlitos.” ; )

 

[Moxie]

LOL

I will stop calling him “Little Holger” when a 2 time Slamp champ is no longer called “Carlitos.” ; )

He calls himself "Charly," which maybe we should start respecting. "Carlitos" is not his name. I guess it's time we recognize that.

 

[MikeOne]

@Kieran

no, this result doesn’t hightlight that it’s just beleif, as if anyone that thinks they can beat novak, they can. Alcaraz is a special player, up there with the big 3 in terms of physical gifts. Novak is simply better than sinner, period. He can outplay sinner due to his superior game..

This reminds me of when rafa started beating roger and some stated ‘he just believes’.. yes he did believe but he also had the game. Sinner believes he can beat novak but very hard for him when novak is on and simply better

I see some now stating how ‘age’ was a factor. I’m not going to be like roger fans who used age as excuse for roger’s loses even dating back to 2009! ‘Past his prime’

i think age had little to do with this result. This was a mental issue, plus alcaraz being the special player he is. We tend to dismiss this could’ve been a straight set win had novak won that second set and then the headlines would’ve surely been ‘novak is a freak, 36 is new 26!’

the last few points of the tiebreaker broke novak for a full set and against alcaraz, hard to come back from a dip in level like that. When novak lost second, i think it affected him badly. He had 18 UFEs in 3rd set which is crazy high for him.. against sinner he had 20 in entire match and less than 20 in other matches. 18 UFEs in a set for novak was crazy… and shows it was mental dip from losing 2nd set where he had set point

he then came back in 4th strong, looking fresh. You don’t do that if it’s age… how can you get stronger as match progresses? In 5th he looked ok… just ran out of luck. Carlos had to play very well to get that 5th set. Carlos had 18 winners and Ufes! That’s not a an old man just going away, carlos just happened to play well. Novak made him close out the match forcing carlos to play very high level…
Had novak won 5th, the storyline ‘ageless novak’. Flip it from 6-4 novak to 4-6 novak and now it’s ‘old novak’…

carlos is a special talent guys… became #1 at 19, 2 slams by 20.. more than novak and roger had at 20

Yes, we can’t fight age but i just didn’t see age being a big factor. The second set was key.. novak was 1 point away from being up 2 sets. Then 3rd set, one of the worst sets novak has played all tournament if not the worst.. 18 ufes! But he came back just was too little too late…

 

[Jelenafan]

He calls himself "Charly," which maybe we should start respecting. "Carlitos" is not his name. I guess it's time we recognize that.

LOL, since when has anyone around here waited to ask permission to give a moniker or nickname to any player? Im sure Stefano approved “Sissypants”. ; )

What next, we wear white before we post? ; )

 

[Moxie]

LOL, since when has anyone around here waited to ask permission to give a moniker or nickname to any player? Im sure Stefano approved “Sissypants”. ; )

What next, we wear white white before we post? ; )

Oh, I'm not being Wimbledon formal. Just saying, our kids are growing up!

 

[Jelenafan]

Oh, I'm not being Wimbledon formal. Just saying, our kids are growing up!

Hey I was going to say of course calling him “ Little Holger” in part was due to all the vituperation piled on the 18 year old Danish cherub when he burst on the scene.

Not only was the thugish Casper Ruud brazenly bullying him in the lockeroom but some posters around here acted like he was Damien incarnate, (“look the antichrist child has another MTO, burn infidel!!) you would think Little Holger had “666” stamped on his forehead. I’m sure the Danish angel cried himself to sleep reading the Tennis Frontier forums cruel & petty unfair bashings of him.

Just trying to keep it objectively real. ; )

 

[rafanoy1992]

Speaking of Rune, it looks like he will play Umag Open and then the Three NA HC tournaments (Canada, Cincy, and USO). I am curious to see on how he does on the three NA HC tournaments.