The Slam Race - Who are you Buying/Selling?

[Moxie]

Agree on all accounts. For me the best case scenario is that Rafa and Novak are done with winning Slams after 2024, and we see a new field emerge of Alcaraz and Sinner at the top, with Rune being the deadly wildcard, Medvedev hanging around being the challenger and then a closer-than-Big-Three-era second tier of a dozen or so players, all of whom win Masters and half at least are serious dark-horses at Slams.

Meaning, I'm looking forward to an era where the question isn't which of three players win a Slam, but which of half a dozen or more, while still having a small group of true elites that set the course. Best of both worlds, really - sort of a middle ground of 98-03 and 03-23.

My prediction is that Djokodal win 1-2 Slams this year, 0-1 in 2025, and 0 in 2026. Meaning, we're basically already in the new era, just with a bit of echo from the past one.

Remember when we used to actually game "dark horses" at Slams on the men's side? That's been a long time. It would and will be fun to go back to that being a real possibility.

 

[tented]

Though I'm with @Sundaymorningguy on Tsitsipas. He'd need a head adjustment to win a Major.

 

[MatchPoint]

OK, but again, he doesn't have to be Rafa or Novak or Roger to be the future of tennis. In fact, he doesn't even have to be singularly dominant to be part of the future of tennis. Imagine a world in which the best players of the next decade end their careers with 9 (Alcaraz), 7 (Sinner), and 5 (Rune) Slams (or whatever totals they end up with). Isn't that enough? Have our expectations calibrated so thoroughly to the Big Three?

Points taken...BUT:
After Wimby, I had Alcaraz pegged as a player who was going to be generationally-dominant.
Barring injury, 15+ Slams at a minimum.
Then he bookends the flops at the USO and AO (with some shocking losess to inferior mugs in between), and all of a sudden people think that 9 Slams would be an adequate career?
Going into this year, here was the expectation:
Joker makes a run at the Calendar Golden Slam, and IF Joker were to lose, only Alcaraz (who derailed Joker's Slam bid at Wimby) could defeat Joker on the big stage.
Now, it is musical chairs at the Slams, with Joker and Carlos descending to the abyss of Mugland.
Carlos has gone from the "Generational Savior/Next Big Thing" to a player who can't be counted on to beat an ITF Journeyman.
Joker has gone from "Can he win the Calendar Golden Slam?" To "Will he even win 1 Slam in 2024?"
The epic flops by the ATP Top 2 at the AO have sent shockwaves through men's tennis.

 

[El Dude]

Points taken...BUT:
After Wimby, I had Alcaraz pegged as a player who was going to be generationally-dominant.
Barring injury, 15+ Slams at a minimum.
Then he bookends the flops at the USO and AO (with some shocking losess to inferior mugs in between), and all of a sudden people think that 9 Slams would be an adequate career?
Going into this year, here was the expectation:
Joker makes a run at the Calendar Golden Slam, and IF Joker were to lose, only Alcaraz (who derailed Joker's Slam bid at Wimby) could defeat Joker on the big stage.
Now, it is musical chairs at the Slams, with Joker and Carlos descending to the abyss of Mugland.
Carlos has gone from the "Generational Savior/Next Big Thing" to a player who can't be counted on to beat an ITF Journeyman.
Joker has gone from "Can he win the Calendar Golden Slam?" To "Will he even win 1 Slam in 2024?"
The epic flops by the ATP Top 2 at the AO have sent shockwaves through men's tennis.

Well, I would say that you expected too much - or at least too soon. Who knows how good Alcaraz might become, but "15+ Slams at a minimum" is a tall order for anyone, as only three players have done that during the Open Era.

I've often said that in the post-Big Three era, we need to re-calibrate expectations. I would argue that we shouldn't expect any player to win "15+ Slams at a minimum," let alone before they're of American drinking age. I'm sure we'll see someone do that eventually, but I wouldn't expect it from any one player, at least not until they start approaching 10.

On the other hand, I wouldn't write Alcaraz off from such greatness. He has the complete game to do that. But if he "only" wins, say, 6-9, it is still more than any player other than the Big Three since Agassi. Remember that in the Open Era, only a dozen players have won 6+ Slams (not counting cross-era players like Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe): Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Becoming the 13th player to do so is enough to earn the appellation "all-time great," imo - and I think that's already a lot to expect from any player.

So my suggestion would be to re-calibrate to that, to ask the question: "Who will be the next player to win 6+ Slams and join the other all-time greats?" Alcaraz is still the most likely player, followed by Sinner and then a gap to Rune. If one of them reaches that mark before, say, turning 26, we can start dreaming bigger. But getting to 6 Slams is already quite an accomplishment, despite how easy the Big Three made it seem.

 

[Moxie]

Well, I would say that you expected too much - or at least too soon. Who knows how good Alcaraz might become, but "15+ Slams at a minimum" is a tall order for anyone, as only three players have done that during the Open Era.

I've often said that in the post-Big Three era, we need to re-calibrate expectations. I would argue that we shouldn't expect any player to win "15+ Slams at a minimum," let alone before they're of American drinking age. I'm sure we'll see someone do that eventually, but I wouldn't expect it from any one player, at least not until they start approaching 10.

Exactly. Such short memories we have. (Well, except you. LOL!) Pete's 14 looked like a GOAT number, for a few years, anyway. I remember a poll on this forum after Djokovic won Wimbledon 2011, (his 3rd,) as to how many Slams he might go on to win. The top end was "10+" I got into it a bit with a Novak fan, who is still around here, because I thought it was early to vote for "10+" Obviously, I was wrong. But, at that point in time, Rafa had 10, and Roger, I think, 15. We had no reason to think 3 players in the same era could reach that high, IMO. Now, we seem to think that 15 Majors is chicken feed.

It's worth remembering that 2 Majors gets you into the Hall of Fame.

On the other hand, I wouldn't write Alcaraz off from such greatness. He has the complete game to do that. But if he "only" wins, say, 6-9, it is still more than any player other than the Big Three since Agassi. Remember that in the Open Era, only a dozen players have won 6+ Slams (not counting cross-era players like Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe): Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Becoming the 13th player to do so is enough to earn the appellation "all-time great," imo - and I think that's already a lot to expect from any player.

So my suggestion would be to re-calibrate to that, to ask the question: "Who will be the next player to win 6+ Slams and join the other all-time greats?" Alcaraz is still the most likely player, followed by Sinner and then a gap to Rune. If one of them reaches that mark before, say, turning 26, we can start dreaming bigger. But getting to 6 Slams is already quite an accomplishment, despite how easy the Big Three made it seem.

Novak had 6 Majors by age 26...so you pegged that benchmark, whether intentionally or not. Roger and Rafa had more by that age, but Novak made up the ground later.

Alcaraz, Sinner and Rune have time to come good on potential. Two of them already have in big ways. Options are stretched out in front of them. I think some people are impatient and/or expect too much, based on recency bias.

 

[El Dude]

Exactly. Such short memories we have. (Well, except you. LOL!) Pete's 14 looked like a GOAT number, for a few years, anyway. I remember a poll on this forum after Djokovic won Wimbledon 2011, (his 3rd,) as to how many Slams he might go on to win. The top end was "10+" I got into it a bit with a Novak fan, who is still around here, because I thought it was early to vote for "10+" Obviously, I was wrong. But, at that point in time, Rafa had 10, and Roger, I think, 15. We had no reason to think 3 players in the same era could reach that high, IMO. Now, we seem to think that 15 Majors is chicken feed.

It's worth remembering that 2 Majors gets you into the Hall of Fame.

Novak had 6 Majors by age 26...so you pegged that benchmark, whether intentionally or not. Roger and Rafa had more by that age, but Novak made up the ground later.

Alcaraz, Sinner and Rune have time to come good on potential. Two of them already have in big ways. Options are stretched out in front of them. I think some people are impatient and/or expect too much, based on recency bias.

And to be fair to MatchPoint--and all of us--it is kind of weird coming out of the Big Three era. Again, 65 of 79 Slams in 20 years. There were other eras of similar dominance by small groups of players (e.g. Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the late 70s to early 80s, then Lendl added as a coda), but not for as long. As you said, we forget what a more typical era is like. In other words, the Big Three and Borg and Mac at least all look pretty similar through about age 25, but it is what the Big Three did after that set them apart historically - and has skewed our expectations.

We can also look to the many lesser players who won Slams in their early 20s and nothing later on. Roddick won his lone Slam at 21; Safin won a Slam at 20 and just one more at 24; Hewitt won his two Slams at 20-21; or even Kuerten winning three Slams but none after 24, or Courier four at age 20-22.

I do think we'll see similar levels of dominance as the Big Three in the future. As I said, we've seen similar peak dominance before, but we haven't seen extended dominance like this before, at least not in the Open Era (Laver was similarly dominant for about a decade, but it was across three different tours: amateur, pro, Open Era).

So one of the big questions I have is: how will post-Big Three players age? Aging patterns haven't been consistent across tennis history. Tennis got a lot younger starting in the late 70s, and it was only with the Big Four that we saw more than random anomalies retain close-to-peak level deep into their 30s, not to mention Slam titles at 35 or older. So my question: how will the younger generations starting with Medvedev (b. 1996), and continuing through Zverev, Sinner, Alcaraz and others age? Will they continue with what we've seen from the Big Three, or revert to the previous four decades, or (my guess) somewhere in-between?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

And to be fair to MatchPoint--and all of us--it is kind of weird coming out of the Big Three era. Again, 65 of 79 Slams in 20 years. There were other eras of similar dominance by small groups of players (e.g. Connors-Borg-McEnroe in the late 70s to early 80s, then Lendl added as a coda), but not for as long. As you said, we forget what a more typical era is like. In other words, the Big Three and Borg and Mac at least all look pretty similar through about age 25, but it is what the Big Three did after that set them apart historically - and has skewed our expectations.

We can also look to the many lesser players who won Slams in their early 20s and nothing later on. Roddick won his lone Slam at 21; Safin won a Slam at 20 and just one more at 24; Hewitt won his two Slams at 20-21; or even Kuerten winning three Slams but none after 24, or Courier four at age 20-22.

I do think we'll see similar levels of dominance as the Big Three in the future. As I said, we've seen similar peak dominance before, but we haven't seen extended dominance like this before, at least not in the Open Era (Laver was similarly dominant for about a decade, but it was across three different tours: amateur, pro, Open Era).

So one of the big questions I have is: how will post-Big Three players age? Aging patterns haven't been consistent across tennis history. Tennis got a lot younger starting in the late 70s, and it was only with the Big Four that we saw more than random anomalies retain close-to-peak level deep into their 30s, not to mention Slam titles at 35 or older. So my question: how will the younger generations starting with Medvedev (b. 1996), and continuing through Zverev, Sinner, Alcaraz and others age? Will they continue with what we've seen from the Big Three, or revert to the previous four decades, or (my guess) somewhere in-between?

Perhaps the biggest benefactor to the Big Three is the advancements in strength and conditioning, as well as nutrition, over the last 25 years (since the turn from the 20th to the 21st century). That definitely has helped extended the careers of Roger, Rafa, and Novak. I remember the days when Agassi playing at 36 was an outlier. Roger played a slam final at 37, a semifinal at 38, and his last match at 39 (just weeks before his 40th birthday). Even an injury prone Rafa is still an active player just months before his 38th birthday. If Rafa's career took place in the 20th century, there's no way he plays into his 30s.

 

[MatchPoint]

Great stuff above. Great points and analysis.
Just 2 points.
1) Alcaraz (seemingly) has a much higher ceiling than Sinner or Rune.
2) I would shocked if Alcaraz didn't have 6+ Slams before turning 26.

 

[El Dude]

Great stuff above. Great points and analysis.
Just 2 points.
1) Alcaraz (seemingly) has a much higher ceiling than Sinner or Rune.
2) I would shocked if Alcaraz didn't have 6+ Slams before turning 26.

1) Maybe. I think his combination of age and play across all surfaces and overall consistency (despite the "flops") puts him up there with anyone. But I think Sinner has essentially caught up, and who ends up with the better career remains to be seen. But Alcaraz has the headstart. As for ceiling, it is hard to say. Rune is the one who I see with the most untapped potential. If he ever puts it all together and manages both to stay healthy and curb his emotions, look out everyone else.

2) I think he's got a good chance of it, and can see why you'd be shocked. He turns 26 in May of 2029, which means he needs to win 4 of the next 20 Slams. I'd take the over on that. But we just never know how things develop.

 

[Moxie]

1) Maybe. I think his combination of age and play across all surfaces and overall consistency (despite the "flops") puts him up there with anyone. But I think Sinner has essentially caught up, and who ends up with the better career remains to be seen. But Alcaraz has the headstart. As for ceiling, it is hard to say. Rune is the one who I see with the most untapped potential. If he ever puts it all together and manages both to stay healthy and curb his emotions, look out everyone else.

I agree with @MatchPoint here that Alcaraz probably has the highest ceiling. While Sinner has sort of "caught up," and is shaping up to be a big bugaboo for Alcaraz, in the H2H, I still think that Charly has more variety of shot, and is naturally more aggressive. As to Rune, you know I'm rooting for him to come to full flower. He has a powerful game, but I still think he's more limited in options (to-date) than Alcaraz. But they would make such a fascinating Top 3, if it comes to that.

2) I think he's got a good chance of it, and can see why you'd be shocked. He turns 26 in May of 2029, which means he needs to win 4 of the next 20 Slams. I'd take the over on that. But we just never know how things develop.

I agree it's not a bad bet.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I agree with @MatchPoint here that Alcaraz probably has the highest ceiling. While Sinner has sort of "caught up," and is shaping up to be a big bugaboo for Alcaraz, in the H2H, I still think that Charly has more variety of shot, and is naturally more aggressive. As to Rune, you know I'm rooting for him to come to full flower. He has a powerful game, but I still think he's more limited in options (to-date) than Alcaraz. But they would make such a fascinating Top 3, if it comes to that.

I agree it's not a bad bet.

I agree with you about Alcaraz.

My question for you is who do you think will be more accomplished will be better in the future: Sinner or Rune?

The reason I am asking is because it seems like a lot of posters in these forums want Rune to succeed (rightfully so…) in the future.

 

[rafanoy1992]

One more thing: While I do think Alcaraz will be more accomplished than Sinner due to different factors, I do think H2H between Alcaraz and Sinner will always be close. I won’t be surprised if Sinner at the end will have a winning H2H over Alcaraz.

One thing about Sinner is that he is really good making adjustments within his own game. He might not be as creative as Alcaraz, as Moxie said, but he will tweak his gameplan so his opponent won’t have the same look.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Sinner has the highest floor. His game is the most sustainable and is less likely prone to injury.

Rune has the highest ceiling, but also the lowest floor. I could realistically see Rune never reaching Tsitsipas or Zverev's peak.

 

[El Dude]

Sinner has the highest floor. His game is the most sustainable and is less likely prone to injury.

Rune has the highest ceiling, but also the lowest floor. I could realistically see Rune never reaching Tsitsipas or Zverev's peak.

This is kind of how I feel, though mostly by gut feeling. But I'd only quibble a bit and say I think Sinner and Alcaraz have similar floors.

 

[Moxie]

I agree with you about Alcaraz.

My question for you is who do you think will be more accomplished will be better in the future: Sinner or Rune?

The reason I am asking is because it seems like a lot of posters in these forums want Rune to succeed (rightfully so…) in the future.

I definitely think that Sinner will have the better future, over Rune, and not just because he's already come good in the Slams. I think that his positive H2H v. Alcaraz is no joke. Potentially akin to Nadal's v. Federer. All great players can have an Achilles heel.

For me, personally, I'm touting Rune because i want him in the mix. IMO, he'll be 3rd.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Alcaraz and Rune are okay but Sinner is going to send Djokovic into retirement. I doubt Djokovic will even show up to his next match against King Sinner. The Pushing Era is finally over, we can now finally go back to real Tennis.

 

[Fiero425]

Alcaraz and Rune are okay but Sinner is going to send Djokovic into retirement. I doubt Djokovic will even show up to his next match against King Sinner. The Pushing Era is finally over, we can now finally go back to real Tennis.

Ridiculous! Pushing Era? IMO, Nadal's game was a lot more defensive; slicing & dicing more BH's than ever B4! Novak's still pounding the ball!