Who is your next guy? (poll!)

[El Dude]

Now that the Big Four/Three/Two era is ending (really, it is...sorta), who are you looking at as your next favorite?

I'm voting undecided. A few years back, I was watching Felix, but now I'm not so sure. I like him - all four options, really - but no one has "grabbed me" yet as The One.

Rune is sneaking up, though...

 

[El Dude]

I think a favorite is like sexual/romantic attraction - it isn't a choice. You like who you like.

My favorite baseball team is the Angels, because I visited my grandparents in CA in 1980ish and was impressed with all the paraphernalia. I was hooked (and woe is me, except for 2002) - even though I've never lived in southern California (just NoCal for about a year).

My favorite football team are the Bills, because when I was a kid I liked the buffalo design and was imprinted. After four years in a row of losing the Superbowl, I became disillusioned, but have been a fan in recent years - the Josh Allen Era. But it isn't nearly as strong an attachment as with the Angels, probably because I'm not as big a football fan.

With tennis, my first favorite was Borg - but that is only a vague memory of seeing him on TV. I liked Edberg and then Sampras for a bit, but didn't follow tennis all that closely. In the early 2000s, I heard about this young Swiss player and took notice and he became my favorite - but even then, my interest in tennis was more casual until about 2010 (unfortunately for me, because I somewhat missed his best years). But Roger was my guy.

I've been looking for a next favorite for a few years, but no one has grabbed me. I really do see it like attraction - you just like who you like; if it is a choice, it is subconscious. When I don't have a clear favorite, I have players I like, or I tend to root for the underdog. But I don't (yet) feel that intense investment like I did with Roger.

I like Alcaraz a lot, but given that he is looking like the player to beat, I find myself veering more towards Rune...I like his game a lot, and while he's a brat, so too was Roger at a similar age, and Borg before he took the world by storm. Hopefully he can grow out of it.

I still like Felix quite a bit, but he also hasn't totally captured my heart. But he's a contender.

So right now it is Rune/FAA, then Alcaraz/Sinner. Who knows, maybe it will be Arthur Fils or Van Assche that finally fully grabs me.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Well Borg was my favorite player, I guess he also took my heart. I think as fans we tend to be attracted to players that in ways we can relate to. I was in the tennis wilderness when Borg retired at age 25, I admired many players, for their tennis skills, still I could not openly say they were my favorite player. Until a player I saw live woke me up and I have followed his career since he first came on the tour...Nadal. Borg and Nadal are like chalk and cheese on the court, when you see Nadal playing live, he makes you play every point with him, sometimes not in a good way.Other players like Del Potro I had huge admiration for, sad his career was cut short with injuries. I admired Federer with his tennis skills, though I would call him a huge fan of mine.

Presently,
Alcaraz is soo special in every way, he is mature beyond his years, well mannered, he plays with conviction,
Sinner I have always had a high opinion of, though I feel it will take him a couple of years to reach his full potential, though he is in good hands with Cahill.
FAA maybe another player that takes a longer time to reach his full potential, though when his game is 'on' he is great to watch.
I have not much time for 'brats' aka Rune, he is talented, when he decides to grow up, maybe I will take more notice of his career.

 

[El Dude]

Well Borg was my favorite player, I guess he also took my heart. I think as fans we tend to be attracted to players that in ways we can relate to. I was in the tennis wilderness when Borg retired at age 25, I admired many players, for their tennis skills, still I could not openly say they were my favorite player. Until a player I saw live woke me up and I have followed his career since he first came on the tour...Nadal. Borg and Nadal are like chalk and cheese on the court, when you see Nadal playing live, he makes you play every point with him, sometimes not in a good way.Other players like Del Potro I had huge admiration for, sad his career was cut short with injuries. I admired Federer with his tennis skills, though I would call him a huge fan of mine.

Presently,
Alcaraz is soo special in every way, he is mature beyond his years, well mannered, he plays with conviction,
Sinner I have always had a high opinion of, though I feel it will take him a couple of years to reach his full potential, though he is in good hands with Cahill.
FAA maybe another player that takes a longer time to reach his full potential, though when his game is 'on' he is great to watch.
I have not much time for 'brats' aka Rune, he is talented, when he decides to grow up, maybe I will take more notice of his career.

Weird, because I don't relate with Roger - and in way, admire Rafa more - his tenacity and sheer will to win. And I have more in common with Novak, in terms of his "alternate views" on things. But Roger grabbed me, maybe because I was taken by the beauty of his game.

Oh yeah, vote!

 

[Kieran]

I’m still recovering from Sissypussy, so I’m not sure I’m ready yet to move on. He was my last next guy, and you don’t get over that kinda thing too quickly.

Okay I’m over it now, took a couple seconds.

I like Alcaraz. Not because he was erroneously filed under the Baby Rafa category or because he’s Spanish. It’s because at the moment he’s the most compelling watch in tennis. He’s exciting and inspired like Roger, he’s got swagger like Novak, he’s a fighter like Rafa, he’s a brilliant mover and shot maker. He’s still learning, I think, so I’m wondering how good he’ll become. So at the moment I’m rooting for him in all his matches…but I also like Sinner, FAA and especially find Rune interesting..

 

[El Dude]

I’m still recovering from Sissypussy, so I’m not sure I’m ready yet to move on. He was my last next guy, and you don’t get over that kinda thing too quickly.

Okay I’m over it now, took a couple seconds.

I like Alcaraz. Not because he was erroneously filed under the Baby Rafa category or because he’s Spanish. It’s because at the moment he’s the most compelling watch in tennis. He’s exciting and inspired like Roger, he’s got swagger like Novak, he’s a fighter like Rafa, he’s a brilliant mover and shot maker. He’s still learning, I think, so I’m wondering how good he’ll become. So at the moment I’m rooting for him in all his matches…but I also like Sinner, FAA and especially find Rune interesting..

You sound like you're in a similar boat to me, though I never fell for Sissipuss and his locks. I flirted with Rublev, but he never fully grabbed me (and before him, Grigor...but then he got lost in Sharapova's XXX and his general limpness turned me off).

We're still early in this new era, and Novak and Rafa aren't done, but it sure seems like Alcaraz will be the guy to beat, and everyone else contenders (or pretenders) for the throne. Given that, and my preference for underdogs, I can see myself liking someone who is able to challenge him...my best bet is on Rune.

Anyhow, Tsitsipas isn't done. I know, at 24 the chances of him becoming a true great are rather slim, but he is still just 24, so could still take a step up. And to be fair to him, his two Finals losses were to Novak...no shame in that. His problem is that even if Novak slips another notch and Rafa calls it a career soon, he's got Alcaraz and Rune on the rise, and he's really only a two-Slam contender (though I think he should fare better at the USO than he has in the past). Furthermore, Medvedev and Zverev have played at higher levels (according to Elo), and Sinner looks like he's joining the club.

But I could see Sissy being one of those guys that sneaks in a Slam sometime in his late 20s. He's getting opportunities - he's reached the SF or better in six out of his last nine AO and RGs.

p.s. Tsitsipas's peak Elo is 2258, 7th highest among active players (assuming Del Potro and Nishikori are done), and just a hair above Thiem's peak of 2250, and 49th all-time. Players within 20 Elo points of him include one multi-Slam winner (Rafter), a lot of one Slam winners (Roddick, Thiem, Panatta, Ivanisevic, Tanner, Gimeno, Chang, Noah, Stich) and Slamless second tier guys (Soderling, Raonic, Berdych, Mecir, Solomon, Ramirez, Tsonga, Ralston, Nystrom, Rios, etc). Meaning, about half of similarly talented players win Slams, half don't - and only one multi-Slams (

Unfortunately for Tsitsipas, his Elo peak was in 2021 - two years ago. He's held pretty steady at the 2200 level since, but what is concerning is that he hasn't trended up, as players generally do until around 24-25. So what we've seen is what we might be getting...similar with Medvedev and Zverev, though those guys have been eclipsed 2300 Elo.

Actually, it is looking like 2021 might have been the peak of Next Gen...they'll probably plateau for a bit longer, but Millenials are on the rise.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

From those choices I'd put right now in order Alcaraz, Rune, FAA, Sinner. But someone like Medvedev who is only 27 yrs old can still raise his level in the next few years and still end up with 5+ slams. The 30's are the new 20's.

I'm really interested in the final today between Meddy and Carito, it will give us an idea...

 

[El Dude]

From those choices I'd put right now in order Alcaraz, Rune, FAA, Sinner. But someone like Medvedev who is only 27 yrs old can still raise his level in the next few years and still end up with 5+ slams. The 30's are the new 20's.

I'm really interested in the final today between Meddy and Carito, it will give us an idea...

I didn't include Medvedev because he is 27...which means we've probably seen him at his best already. Like you, I think he could have a nice little run over the next two or three years and win a few more Slams. But as with Next Gen as a whole, his problem is that his peak overlaps with the still-high level of Novak and Rafa over the last few years and the rising Millenial guys (in the poll).

I see Next Gen as somewhat similar to Kuerten's gen that had a brief "transitional reign" as the baton was passed from Sampras/Agassi to Hewitt/Federer. In truth, while I think Medvedev could finish one of the next few years at #1, the year end #1 might skip over Next Gen entirely, as it did with Lost Gen. Should be interesting to see how it unfolds...

As for "the 30s are the new 20s," I think that is somewhat true...but we should ignore Roger, Rafa, and Novak when considering that. Stan is already a weird outlier, and despite his late bloom, it was really only for a few years and he hasn't been elite since 2017 when he turned 32. Other guys of that generation have also faded out.

Meaning, I think players are maintaining peak level a bit longer these days, but are still mostly fading sometime in their early 30s. That's definitely older than the 80s to early 00s, but only by a few years at most. And consider when Medvedev turns 30 in 2026, Alcaraz and Rune will be turning 23, Sinner 25 and FAA 26 - all peak years. Could be a crowded field.

 

[Kieran]

You sound like you're in a similar boat to me, though I never fell for Sissipuss and his locks. I flirted with Rublev, but he never fully grabbed me (and before him, Grigor...but then he got lost in Sharapova's XXX and his general limpness turned me off).

We're still early in this new era, and Novak and Rafa aren't done, but it sure seems like Alcaraz will be the guy to beat, and everyone else contenders (or pretenders) for the throne. Given that, and my preference for underdogs, I can see myself liking someone who is able to challenge him...my best bet is on Rune.

Anyhow, Tsitsipas isn't done. I know, at 24 the chances of him becoming a true great are rather slim, but he is still just 24, so could still take a step up. And to be fair to him, his two Finals losses were to Novak...no shame in that. His problem is that even if Novak slips another notch and Rafa calls it a career soon, he's got Alcaraz and Rune on the rise, and he's really only a two-Slam contender (though I think he should fare better at the USO than he has in the past). Furthermore, Medvedev and Zverev have played at higher levels (according to Elo), and Sinner looks like he's joining the club.

But I could see Sissy being one of those guys that sneaks in a Slam sometime in his late 20s. He's getting opportunities - he's reached the SF or better in six out of his last nine AO and RGs.

p.s. Tsitsipas's peak Elo is 2258, 7th highest among active players (assuming Del Potro and Nishikori are done), and just a hair above Thiem's peak of 2250, and 49th all-time. Players within 20 Elo points of him include one multi-Slam winner (Rafter), a lot of one Slam winners (Roddick, Thiem, Panatta, Ivanisevic, Tanner, Gimeno, Chang, Noah, Stich) and Slamless second tier guys (Soderling, Raonic, Berdych, Mecir, Solomon, Ramirez, Tsonga, Ralston, Nystrom, Rios, etc). Meaning, about half of similarly talented players win Slams, half don't - and only one multi-Slams (

Unfortunately for Tsitsipas, his Elo peak was in 2021 - two years ago. He's held pretty steady at the 2200 level since, but what is concerning is that he hasn't trended up, as players generally do until around 24-25. So what we've seen is what we might be getting...similar with Medvedev and Zverev, though those guys have been eclipsed 2300 Elo.

Actually, it is looking like 2021 might have been the peak of Next Gen...they'll probably plateau for a bit longer, but Millenials are on the rise.

I think with Tsitsipas it’s the way he lost those two finals against Novak: like a loser, not a winner. I remember the FO Final my bro texted me saying the final got interesting, Tsitsipas won the first two sets, but I told him, it hasn’t even started yet. You could tell, and I don’t see that changing for him. I actually see him going into a morbid mind funk at some stage, frustrated that he’s not progressing. Time will bury him fairly rapidly.

I actually think Rafa’s done as well, though I know few people will believe me. But looking at him objectively, he hasn’t actually been a feature on the tour since he pulled out of Wimbledon, and he’ll be lucky if he’s fit on clay - fit enough to win in Paris. I’d give him a shot at that if he is, but again, objectively speaking, he’s trending the way ancient players trend. He’s not the man he was, and we were blessed to see him regain glory last season, and it’s a great pity what happened at Wimbledon, and since then, but that’s life for Rafa and his fans.

But the bright spot is these youngsters. we finally have a bunch that look like they have time on their side to get past Rafa and Novak. FAA still needs to become less Canadian, if you get me, and Sinner still lacks a dimension I haven’t been able to put my finger on, but Rune looks like he’s got the fire, just needs to learn how to use it, and then we have Carlos.

The younger players you mention, they’re exciting too but I haven’t seen them yet…

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

El Dude,

I read an article the other day from Borg, who thinks we should not be comparing the rising youngsters, Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner etc to Novak and Rafa, though I guess we have to have a comparison, even though they are early into their careers, he also said the media should be focused more on their achievements presently than how many GS titles will Novak or Rafa end up with.
( I am also watching the women's final as I typed lol)

 

[El Dude]

El Dude,

I read an article the other day from Borg, who thinks we should not be comparing the rising youngsters, Alcaraz, Rune, Sinner etc to Novak and Rafa, though I guess we have to have a comparison, even though they are early into their careers, he also said the media should be focused more on their achievements presently than how many GS titles will Novak or Rafa end up with.

Yeah, I've said as much a bunch of times. It isn't fair to compare anyone to Novak and Rafa (and Roger), but unfortunately it is hard not to. I think most of us here would agree with this, but we all probably subconsciously look at the Big Three.

One of the things I've noticed in my various studies is that if you look at players up until around age 21, there are quite a few more players that look--on the face of things--as if they could become greats, but don't. Recently we have Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin...all looked like future mega-stars at 20-21, all won Slams and had very good careers, but for various reasons they never got to that next level. Or we could look a bit lower at Tomas Berdych, who won the Paris Masters at 20 years old in 2005, and then never won another big title.

That's where Alcaraz is right now and, to a lesser degree, Rune. Now I think there's good reason to be optimistic, that he's about as sure a thing of greatness (e.g. 6+ Slams) as we've seen in quite awhile. But at age 19-20, we're just at the beginning. We don't know how healthy will be, or how he'll develop.

Here's a chart I've shared before, that I think reveals some interesting patterns:

Chang's the only player (out of six) to win a big title before their 19th birthday, and not end up winning 6+ Slams. So Alcaraz is in very good company there.

Rune's group broadens a bit, with two guys--Andrei Medvedev and Alberto Mancini--never even winning Slams, despite winning their first big title at age 19.

So if we look purely at this benchmark, we have:

Alcaraz: 83% of similar players become ATGs (6+ Slams), 17% lesser/near great (e.g. Chang).
Rune: 73% became ATGs, 9% lesser/near greats, 18% second tier types.

Now I know that's not really how it works - that we can simply extrapolate historical percentages like that and say those are the chances those two have of reaching different tiers, but it is interesting nonetheless. Not bad odds for either!

Notice also Zverev...he won his first big title at age 20. Of the 22 previous players to do so, 17 went on to win Slams, 15 multiple Slams, and 10 6+ Slams.

 

[El Dude]

I think with Tsitsipas it’s the way he lost those two finals against Novak: like a loser, not a winner. I remember the FO Final my bro texted me saying the final got interesting, Tsitsipas won the first two sets, but I told him, it hasn’t even started yet. You could tell, and I don’t see that changing for him. I actually see him going into a morbid mind funk at some stage, frustrated that he’s not progressing. Time will bury him fairly rapidly.

I actually think Rafa’s done as well, though I know few people will believe me. But looking at him objectively, he hasn’t actually been a feature on the tour since he pulled out of Wimbledon, and he’ll be lucky if he’s fit on clay - fit enough to win in Paris. I’d give him a shot at that if he is, but again, objectively speaking, he’s trending the way ancient players trend. He’s not the man he was, and we were blessed to see him regain glory last season, and it’s a great pity what happened at Wimbledon, and since then, but that’s life for Rafa and his fans.

But the bright spot is these youngsters. we finally have a bunch that look like they have time on their side to get past Rafa and Novak. FAA still needs to become less Canadian, if you get me, and Sinner still lacks a dimension I haven’t been able to put my finger on, but Rune looks like he’s got the fire, just needs to learn how to use it, and then we have Carlos.

The younger players you mention, they’re exciting too but I haven’t seen them yet…

Yeah, I hear you. Sissy does really seem to embody his moniker.

I hear you about Rafa and have thought (and said) as much, but let's see how he looks on clay. At this point, though, I would probably put him as #3 behind Novak and Carlos at Roland Garros...which is a weird thing to consider.

LOL...I hear you about Felix. Maybe he needs to channel more the despotic Trudeau than the more stereotypical Canadian. I also feel similarly about Sinner. I called him "fragile" in another thread...not saying that in terms of injury, but it just feels like he doesn't have that certain kind of bullish or brutishness that is required to win big time. But he's still only 21.

But yeah, Rune has the fire - which his dominance late last year illustrates. He was beating everyone. I suspect he'll be up and down this year, but by 2024 or 25 at the latest, be right there with Carlos atop the heap.

Fils and Van Assche are noteworthy for being the only guys younger than Rune and Alcaraz who are on the cusp of the top 100. I have no idea how their games look, though some here said positive things about Fils. They share the same problem, though: they're both French.

 

[El Dude]

Looking at that chart one more time, and a couple more things stand out:

• ALL 12 6+ Slam winners of the Open Era won their first big title by age 21.
• 22 of 23 multi-Slam winners won their first big title by age 24 (with Stan the lone exception).

Stan is such an outlier that he's the only Slam winner to win his first BT after turning 27...and he did it at age 28, and eventually won three Slams.

The above would imply that the clock is ticking for Sinner, who turns 22 in August. FAA has missed this benchmark for future all-time-greatness, as he's already 22.

If Medvedev wins multiple Slams, he'll be only the fourth player to do so that won their first big title at age 23 or later - along with Kriek, Rafter, and Wawrinka.

 

[Kieran]

• ALL 12 6+ Slam winners of the Open Era won their first big title by age 21.
• 22 of 23 multi-Slam winners won their first big title by age 24 (with Stan the lone exception).

That's very interesting, especially the first one. But even the second one - it makes it less farfetched to dismiss certain players, because now we have something like proof that when players have failed to win a slam by a certain age, it shows up in their record. The truly great players show it already, before they reach 21. If it isn't in the DNA by 21, then we can read the rest of their lives in tennis, to a fairly real extent.

I'm not over-exaggerating this data - the Open era is 55 fricking years old!

 

[El Dude]

That's very interesting, especially the first one. But even the second one - it makes it less farfetched to dismiss certain players, because now we have something like proof that when players have failed to win a slam by a certain age, it shows up in their record. The truly great players show it already, before they reach 21. If it isn't in the DNA by 21, then we can read the rest of their lives in tennis, to a fairly real extent.

I'm not over-exaggerating this data - the Open era is 55 fricking years old!

Just to clarify: By "by age 21" I meant before turning 22.

But yeah. And just as it makes it less far-fetched to make judgments with such things, we always have Stan to remind us that occasionally outliers happen. But the corollary is this:

• Of the 14 players to win their first big title after turning 27, only won even won a second big title. Stan. And...
• Of the 32 players to win their first big title after turning 25, only one went on to win multiple Slams. Stan.

So it supports both points: That such benchmarks are meaningful, but there's one outlier - the amazing Stan Wawrinka.

Still, I suspect that at some point we're going to see break that "first big title before 22" rule for all-time greats, just as Stan only recently broke the above benchmarks.

 

[shawnbm]

Carlos believes in himself and his game now--He will be a tough one for a while me thinks. The Greek wonder can turn that corner; he just needs to win a big one and get that extra boost and he will be dangerous once again. He has made finals so he has it. Ruud? Not so sure. maybe. FAA? Losing confidence in him.

 

[Kieran]

Just to clarify: By "by age 21" I meant before turning 22.

But yeah. And just as it makes it less far-fetched to make judgments with such things, we always have Stan to remind us that occasionally outliers happen. But the corollary is this:

• Of the 14 players to win their first big title after turning 27, only won even won a second big title. Stan. And...
• Of the 32 players to win their first big title after turning 25, only one went on to win multiple Slams. Stan.

So it supports both points: That such benchmarks are meaningful, but there's one outlier - the amazing Stan Wawrinka.

Still, I suspect that at some point we're going to see break that "first big title before 22" rule for all-time greats, just as Stan only recently broke the above benchmarks.

It might be something to do with Stan's diet? I mean, he's in a category of his own there too. A very large category - but only because he's sized XXX tennis shorts...

 

[Moxie]

This is a fun thread...clearly. I'm almost coming late just due to watching the women's final. I do agree with your point, @El Dude, that a player or a team that we root for passionately is somewhat out of our control. There's an x-factor, whether we "relate" to them, as Margaret says, or not, they somehow blow our skirts up, and I do mean that metaphorically. But with a team or a player, it's a bit like imprinting a parent. Or falling in love. Once the alchemy happens, it's impossible to undo. In this era, most of us have chosen loyalties between the Big 3, and so, as you rightly qualify it, and to extend the metaphor: we're "flirting" with a next favorite, or "dating around," as it were.

I'm going to vote Alcaraz in part just because of that hilarious meme that you put up of me on the other thread. All too true! I'll never give up on Rafa until he hangs them up, but my eyes are wandering towards Charlie. It's like when I was a Safin fan, and then I discovered Rafa. I realized that a Safin fan needed a good back-up, and at the time I didn't realize what a good "back-up" Rafa would turn out to be. (They only overlapped in one match, I think, so my loyalties were not sorely tested.) @Kieran fairly laid out all of the reasons I like Alacaraz, above, including to say that it's not because he's Spanish, though, having lived in Spain, I'm inclined to Spanish players and teams. Likewise, having lived in Italy, and being Italian-American, I lean to Italian teams and players. And the American ones, too.

Like Kieran, I thought Tsitsipas might be one I could like/love. I joked with folks around here that I might join the cult of the 1-hander. But he's put me off in too many ways. Like @MargaretMcAleer, I am put off by extremely poor behavior...one of those things you can't help...so a few others have dropped off, though I'm willing to think that Rune has time to change. (And for no reason that makes any sense, I like Kyrgios, in spite of his poor behavior. But you DID acknowledge that there's no real sense in all of this.)

You note that Medvedev is a bit long-in-the-tooth to be included. Well, no one has to pick a favorite because they're likely to have the best career, right? They just have to like them. @Front242 likes Medvedev and has been championing him for some time. Maybe he's Front's new favorite, now that Roger has retired.

Others I have flirted with, since you asked: Tiafoe has long been a fave...we grew up in the same area (i.e., where it started,) plus he's charming and really improving into a force. Sebastian Korda is still on my list, though I don't think it will ever be "love." Same with Rune. Sinner and Berrettini are still very high on my list. Fallen off the list: Tsitsipas and Zverev. Holding a place for Arthur Fils.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I forgot to add Ben Shelton as one of my rising stars, he has a great all round game, great lefty serve, he needs to improve his return game, though at his age he has time on his side,he always seems to ' enjoy his time the court every time he plays, win or lose, a great smile and hair, I will watch Ben's career with interest, I became a fan at the good play he produced at the AO this year.

 

[Moxie]

I forgot to add Ben Shelton as one of my rising stars, he has a great all round game, great lefty serve, he needs to improve his return game, though at his age he has time on his side,he always seems to ' enjoy his time the court every time he plays, win or lose, a great smile and hair, I will watch Ben's career with interest, I became a fan at the good play he produced at the AO this year.

@El Dude...one of Margaret's intangibles is "great hair."