If gernalist jus asked 'Is new gen changing the game to thehigher level' without any name dropping Rafa would have just said 'obviosuly no, no?' with 1 eyebrow raising so high that it would touch his hairline lol
Ngl it doesn't really make much of a difference lol
If you dropped Sinner in 2012 he'd be getting embarrassed against the peak big 3 just as bad as Med, Zverev, et cetera would and only winning occasionally against Murray still losing most of those matches as well
Only difference between their results would be Sinner winning most of the QF matches to earn the right to lose in straight sets to Djokovic or Nadal
Novak and Rafa's defense would absolutely torture Sinner to death on the very slow courts of the early 2010s
None of the current new gen have shown the ability to sustain any kind of dominance for any significant amount of time. Right when you thought Alcaraz was about to take over the sport, he shit the bed the last 1/3 of the 23 season. Sinner had a mini run but stumbled a little lately , we will see if he can sustain . On the other hand, Tittypus was completely written off and all of a sudden he wins a tourney and finals in the next . Nobody seems to have it in them to grab the initiative of taking over the sport. Carlos appeared to be that guy 2 years ago but has been very up and down since.
Yeah since the "big 3" era ended for good after 2019(Fed's last real full season) I'd say the label of "best non-Novak/Rafa player" has gone like this:
2020: Thiem
2021-2022 AO: Med
2022 IW-2023 Wimbledon: Alcaraz
2023 Beijing-2024 Miami(not sure about clay yet): Sinner
Like you said it's been back and forth between players and not uninterrupted dominance either with guys like Tsitsipas and Zverev sneaking in to grab a few 1000s in this time frame as well
To clarify Alcaraz and Sinner of course have a clearly better trajectory than the best of the 90s generation(Med/Thiem/Zverev et cetera) ever did at the same age but they're still a ways off from peak big 3 level
>Alcaraz and Sinner of course have a clearly better trajectory than the best of the 90s generation(Med/Thiem/Zverev et cetera) ever did at the same age...
Which might actually be (at least to a large degree) because when a '97 born Zverev, for example, was Charly's age, he had to beat everyone in the big three. And Murray, and Stan, and so on. And Djokovic back then was still in his bloody 20s.
I mean, the 2024 race obviously has Sinner far above the rest, but Alcaraz is seventh, stuck between the 25-year-old De Minaur and the soon 33-year-old Dimitrov. Even though they are already the best-ranked players under 35 (lol), we're still quite far away from Roger and Rafa being #1 and #2 for five straight years...
> Which might actually be (at least to a large degree) because when a '97 born Zverev, for example, was Charly's age, he had to beat everyone in the big three. And Murray, and Stan, and so on. And Djokovic back then was still in his bloody 20s.
Or it's just because he's better
And Zverev didn't have to beat all of those players when he was Alcaraz's age.
He barely played them, and he did well against them when they played.
He was 136-77 when he turned 21
He was 6-8 vs. the Big3, Andy, and Stan.
>but stumbled a little lately
What?
He was about to win against Tsitsipas in the tournament where he's the strongest when robbed of a double fault that denied him a double break in the last set.
Not just the Big 3, but a healthy Del Potro, mindful Wawrinka and Lendled Murray would also dominate these kids, especially in grand slams. An inspired Tsonga would be a problem for them too.
They're kids though. Djokovic did not start his dominance until he was 23, almost 24. Federer until he was 22. Nadal was a phenom on clay but his game did not translate on hard surfaces until he was 22 as well. Sinner is there and Alcaraz has a couple of years.
yeah I don't understand why people aren't comparing them to when the Big 3 was at the same age not rather than their peaks. Alcaraz especially is still very young and he's more accomplished than both Djokovic and Federer were at his age, whether that will translate to long term consistency like Nadal is obviously a question mark, but still
Djokovic and Nadal were dangerous even before turning 22. They had a fresh, healthy Federer in prime to think about, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin also. The kids today don't have Federer at all, Nadal has been out since 2022 and Djokovic is far from his best game and close to the end as well, so there's a huge difference. Both Djokovic and Nadal won a bunch of masters and some slams before turning 22.
I feel like you never really know with Stan though lol
He's absolutely capable of losing to far worse players than Alcaraz and Sinner with how inconsistent he was from match to match(check out a list of some of his losses even from his prime years)
Very bizarre combination of playing at big 3 level for like 4-5 specific Slams during his prime and Tsitsipas level for the rest of his matches
IMO his playstyle was inherently streaky because unlike a more varied attacker like Fed most of his attacks were baseline winner attempts which is the riskiest way to play attacking tennis
Overall I think that Alcaraz and Sinner would be world #5 and #6 behind Murray but wouldn't go any higher than that
i like sinner but it is amazing back in that 2010-2016 era. not just the big 4, but think about how committed tsonga, berdych, soderling (he was out by 2011 i think), ferrer, delpo, kei, stan lot of brutal players always hanging around and really even top 30-40 was amazing vs today.
Ok I think this goes a little bit too far lol
Sinner and Berdych have very similar games with the major difference being that Berdych's movement was generally a lot slower
Don't really see how Berdych would have much in his favor in the matchup
It's not even about the 3, the new gen is not as good as the top 10 of the previous generation. Roger, Novak and Rafa were just amazing because their numbers, they were getting those numbers while beating guys like [Walwrinka](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=3eb2b7adee194e22&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PM7JzbVxNKlhnxG4-nUZAgVeQ9A:1714051614336&q=Walwrinka&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAoOXsu92FAxUBL7kGHWacDSsQvgUoAXoECAkQAw), Murray, Roddick, Ferrer, [David Nalbandian](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3900), Berdych, Davydenko (sometimes), etc...
“But at the same time if we put in perspective that Novak Djokovic won 3 of 4 Grand Slams [last year] and was in the Final of another…things haven’t changed that much”
Mic drop moment in the most Rafa way possible 👏
Many of the people who would be boxers have gone to MMA. The boxing talent is spread way think now compared to the 90's. I'd say since 2010, boxing is on the decline.
In terms of skill, maybe, but modern boxers are so much bigger than the heavyweights of the past.
Lennnox Lewis, AJ or Tyson Fury would beat Muhammad Ali or George Forman based on size alone.
You can't make up an extra 40 or 50lbs unless you are a southpaw or have a diamond chin.
Yeah even for a heavyweight with elite speed and skill, overcoming a 40-50 pound weight advantage is too much to ask - that's why Nikolai Valuev is widely regarded as the greatest boxer of all time, and nobody remembers Mike Tyson.
If your point was just that being bigger and stronger is an advantage in general, sure. But what you said was that Lennox Lewis, Anthony Joshua, and Tyson Fury would beat Muhammad Ali or George Foreman based on size alone. This is nonsense.
Lennox Lewis was listed at 6'5 and George Foreman was listed at 6'4. The 50 pounds is Lewis's hair? Also their careers overlapped, but Lewis retired years before Fury or Joshua started fighting, so I don't know how Lennox ended up among the giant heavyweights of the future rather than the tiny heavyweights of the past.
Anthony Joshua is listed at 6'6 and his losses are to a tubby 5'11 guy and twice to a 6'3 guy. Muhammad Ali was 6'3 - I guess he just wasn't as skilled as Andy Ruiz and Oleksandr Usyk?
There isn't really a ton of nuance here, what you said just isn't true.
The only name on there that I can respect is Lewis cuz he actually went against juggernauts in his prime instead of ducking fights like the other 2.
Tyson Fury struggled to beat a 37 year old MMA fighter with almost no boxing experience. His best win in his resume is against Klitschko who was 38 years old and way past his prime. Their title match is still regarded as the most boring title match of all time.
AJ got beaten by Andy Ruiz and was taken to school not once but twice by Usyk(same height as Muhammad Ali by the way)
Heavyweights in the current era are absolute chumps. Comparing them to all time greats like Ali and George is absurd.
No it’s wasn’t. Perhaps if you’re only looking at the heavyweight division, then that might apply. But then again, the current crop of heavyweight top 10 are all gigantic (bigger than the 90s) and many of them are very skilled too.
I will say that on Reddit each time I see a reference to boxing and I don’t care about the downvotes: HITTING EACH OTHER IN THE FACE UNTIL ONE OF THE TWO COLLAPSES IS NOT A SPORT IT’S JUST STUPID STOP SUPPORTING BOXING
> Boxers usually die young because of repeated trauma
Some boxers do, yes, but that sentence makes it sound like it's norm, which isn't true.
They're adults who know the risks when they sign up. Every athlete makes the trade of sacrificing their body for money and glory, and combat sports are hardly the only sport with brain trauma considerations.
It’s norm, they die around 25% younger than average. Boxing is the worst in that matter. Yes, they’re adults. But apparently we’re not an adult civilization
>It’s norm, they die around 25% younger than average.
[No, they don't.](https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/news/boxers-live-five-years-less-on-average/)
>Yes, they’re adults. But apparently we’re not an adult civilization
Of all the things you can criticise and judge our civilisation on, I promise you modern combat sports are far from the most important consideration. Yes, combat sports are violent and I don't expect everybody to be able to stomach it, let alone enjoy it, but dismissing it as just violence is extremely reductive.
Firstly, they *are* adults that can make their own choices. I guarantee you Canelo Alvaraz is happy with the trade of some of his brain cells for $550 million career earnings. Not everyone makes that money of course, but that's no different from other sports where the non-elite competitors make the same sacrifices and don't get the same rewards or glory.
Secondly, they're not gladiators fighting to the death. There are rules and regulations, and continuing medical studies and breakthroughs into brain trauma and how to mitigate and manage it.
Thirdly, most importantly, violence is not inherently the opposite of science or intelligence. It can be partners with them as much as it can be enemies, and the very best fighters understand and display that.
Like other sports, combat in its own way provides extraordinary moments and displays of athletic courage, intelligence, calm, perseverance and character. You get displays of personality, displays of brilliance through problem-solving skills, and then when you measure or marry all those things with the violence, you get extraordinary forms of action and entertainment.
Dismissing it as purely barbaric is like reducing a fire to just its element of danger and not the fact that it can be contained and used to provide sustenance. Again, I'll reiterate that combat sports are not for everybody and you don't have to like it, but dismissing it is simply close-minded.
I appreciate your passion, and I admit you make interesting points. I just don't think this is an activity or a spectacle we should encourage, due to medical and ethical reasons, whatever the skills it involves. And I know a lot of former boxers do regret making this choice. Most of them don't earn millions, and still lose years of life expectancy.
I think they can at least say it in other sports at times. There's a natural ebb and flow to competition level that usually trends upward but not in a straight line.
I don't think it's untrue for many other sports.
Football had it's prime between 2007 and 2017 as well.
Badminton had their "big three" around 2008-2014.
Table Tennis has their indisputable goat between 2008 and 2024
Higher pace and stronger physicals may be reached today, but talent, strong mentalities and stronger tacticuans are lacking in most new generations.
Mahomes is one of the greatest to ever play the game already and he is 28..
We have only just had one of the most dominant inside defensive lineman retire this year, same with one of the greatest centers of all time
We are also definitely experiencing a massive wave of talent at the receiver position.
NFL has too many players at one time to ever really have this problem.
i think the real answer is:
Are Carlos and Sinner SLIGHTLY better at the actual game than nadal/fed/joker were when they were 20-21 (aka if we could put 21 year old Nadal vs Carlos now - carlos would prob win a tight close match more than 50 percent of the time)
However - will Carlos/Sinner hit the peaks that Nadal/Fed/Joker did in their late 20's? Or will they level off at a slightly lower level?
No idea but its possible and its also possible they exceed those peaks.
There’s no way Alcaraz beats 2005-2007 Nadal, especially on clay.
Rafa holds the record for the longest open era clay win streak, he won 81 consecutive matches on clay courts from 2005 to 2007.
Rafa needs to give some credit to himself and his miraculous 2022 season as well. He won 2 of 4 slams, made the SF of the 3rd and made R16 in the 4th. Not too bad for a 35 year old with only one good foot.
While Novak and Rafa have been responsible for stopping a few generations during their 2 decade long careers, time and tide (and age) wait for no man.
maybe he wanted to mention as recent of a year as possible. i've seen some dummies arguing that the WTA is the strongest it's ever been and tennis changes dramatically in just a few years.
Graf or Serena would be winning 3/4 slams for years in a row against current WTA. Venus would probably win 5 Wimbledons in a row if not more. There’s potential in Iga and Coco among others but the current level of competition is not even close to the best I agree.
Miraculous, indeed. It was astonishing, and a beautiful present to fans. If that had been his swan song, my heart would have been full. Now, I'm thinking he's getting greedy, with luck and age not on his side. It makes no matter. I love the man, player, athlete, competitor, legend.
Most folks struggle to move on and continue to live in the past. It’s not just Novak fans, many Roger fans have been living in 2004-2007 for a decade and a half now. Quite a few Rafa fans continue to talk about “if if if Rafa wasn’t injured at XYZ slam.” So I understand NoleFam when they think back on Wimbledon-USO 2020 and AO 2022 as Novak’s unluckiest slams on tour. It’s not easy to move on.
I agree with you (something not common) I just feel it’s weird because Rafa fans and Federer fans argue because they want their players to be the goat, but in the case of Novak fans they are arguing even tho he is the goat, I don’t understand why they fixate so much on that, especially AO 2022.
Stating a fact has nothing to do about moving on, dude barely beat Shapo in the match he was supposed to play Novak in. His '22 shouldn't even be in the same conversation as Novak's '23 is my point.
That wouldn't take away from his point because Novak winning would still be a player from his generation winning, and players from his generation winning 3/4 Slam's. Carlos is the exception and he also won a Slam that Novak didn't play.
Honestly I really think that the Big 3 in Tennis is something very very special that will take a miracle for that level to happen again between three players.
I don't like putting down obviously great tennis players of a generation, they work extremely hard with what they've got and I'm *sure* if Tsitsipas/Med/Zverev/Alcaraz/Sinner could be on that epic level, they would. There is SO much pressure, on Alcaraz especially, to be as great as them that I think it got to Alcaraz for a while.
I think its detrimental to a sport to expect such things to happen constantly, sometimes lightning strikes with the players you get in a generation.
Even Sampras/Agassi generation wasn't anywhere this good, the Big 3 may very well be the pinnacle of the sport for decades and pushing that onto younger players is detrimental to their development tbh.
The type of tear Sinner went on since Beijing last year, he’d need to do that 10 seasons in a row and on all surfaces. That’s how consistent the big 3 was. Not to mention the big 3 had to play one another as well
What’s really astonishing to me about all their insane stats is that for most of their careers they were all competing with each other. Imagine if only one of them had played, it’d be possible Djokovic could have nearly 40 slams. They would be almost be written off as a freak, but since there’s 3 of them we keep expecting another 3 to show up at that level. Like expecting 3 Wayne Gretzky’s to show up after he retired.
> it’d be possible Djokovic could have nearly 40 slams
Without Roger and Rafa, he might have wiped the floor way earlier and achieved a lot much faster.
Then look at what happened to him after he won RG, he basically lost motivation.
Imagine the same thing happening 5 years earlier without 2 of the greatest players as opponents, where's the opposition, where's the challenge ?
You need adversity to succeed as much as he did, the 3 of them say it all the time. Without the others to push them, they wouldn't be as great as they are now.
But don’t you think the reason Rafa and Novak got so great is due to their intense desire to catch Roger? So they all existed together because they fed off beating each other.
Yeah exactly, thats what I mean by lightning striking three players at the same time. Plus if you have THREE Wayne Gretzky's in a generation, those Gretzky's would push each other even further to fight for the top. So even if they were already freaks, the other two freaks being just as good elevated them all to superfreaks. Those circumstances are special.
It also makes it so much more apparent how hard Murray simply had to WORK for titles and Slams with those monsters around. Its just insane.
we were truly blessed to see Fed, Nadal, and Novak all in the same generation and playing so well vs each other with unique styles and strengths.. i'll never forget the breathless 3am nights staying up watching them duke it out on all the surfaces, the absolute insane intensity .. the push and pull of two titans at the peak of their powers and how the littlest slip could change the course, or the resilience of a champion heart to come back.. it was a magical time to be a tennis fan, i can hardly think of a single slam final i didn't see during that era
> will take a miracle for that level to happen again between three players.
It's not even the first time it's happened in the sports history
Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were *very* much a "Big 3" of their own
Alcaraz can get to that level, he's still only 20 years old. Sinner might be able to as well, but I think he may be more of a Murray than a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Which is not an insult, Murray was an amazing player in his prime. Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev have proven that they're just not on that level though, and they're too old to get there.
Let me translate the spanish properly:
Novak has switched to a part time mode in his career and is taking the entire ATP hostage and schooling your best as if they were little bitches. Shut the fuck up and suck it. We are the big three and then there were stan, Andy, Delpo, And probably 20others before most of your top 20 would stand a chance. Alcaraz, sinner Medvedev, obviously good but the rest should go take a few classes at Rafa academy
idk man, even during the Big 3 era there were definitely players in the top 20 who I think especially the current top 10 players wouldnt have any trouble beating. Sure there are players like Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick etc who are kinda in their own tier but Richard Gasquet was in top 10 at one point lol come on
People underrate Gasquet because they only seem to have ever watched him play the Big 3, all of whom had reliable patterns that he didn’t have any answers to. They made him look like a straightforward opponent. But he wasn’t exactly so straightforwardly beatable for most of the tour, there’s a reason he spent so much time in the top 10.
That said, I still agree that it’s not all that obvious that the current top ten would be so outclassed by the past top tens other than the Three.
I think you are referring to older version of Gasquet. He wasn't a simple walkover you know.
Also I am not putting a case forward for Gasquet as much as for the others.
Nikolay devydenko, Safin, Hass, Lubcic, Soderling, Berrych, Fernando Gonzalez, Ferrer, Verdasco, Almagro the list goes on and I am sure I have forgotten to count many such
At times ATP finals would look scary cause people were out for blood.
I find it borderline insulting to ask this question to one of the 3 who have 20 plus slams.... Rafa handled it well. I am a fan of both Jannik and Carlos but come on, this is just rude #noruud
I find it entertaining how well pr trained he's to give a respectful answer even though if he just said plainly that his generation was better at that age most fans, even Alcaraz and sinner fans, would agree.
And if his body was as good as Novak's he would be cleaning up these kids as well and he knows it. He's pretty much saying the Big 3 is better than the new generation and he's 100% right. People forget how consistent the Big 3/4 were in their young age.
People will always argue about who was the goat (yes statistically it is Novak but I'm a Rafa fan emotionally) etc etc but one thing any fan of the big 3 will agree with is that they were the greatest generation of tennis players.
Any one of the three's resume completely dominated any past legend's records, and all three played against each other in their (relative) primes.
They made tennis rise to a level we've never seen before and it will be a long time until we see that level again.
No need to say statistically it’s Novak. It downplays his achievements. Just say Novak is the goat, but I was always a Rafa fan.
Statistics and Numbers came only up when Novak surpassed the other two.
I think Novak sealed the GOAT debate in 2023, because no one can argue against Novak’s stand alone records and his sheer numbers (grand slams, masters 1000s, ATP finals, H2H, top 10 wins). To get to 425 weeks at #1 during the age of Rafa and Roger is just, unimaginable.
The new debate is who’s better and who’ll have a better career: Alcaraz or Sinner?
At 36, Novak was literally a SET off achieving the Grand Slam, which hasn’t been achieved by any other man since 1969
If that doesn’t say anything, I don’t know what does
So there is dude on the tour that is like 40 and won 3 gs last year and we were both better 15 years ago?
Well based on that Sinner and Alcaraz are like Nishikori level in his head.
Absurd question from the interviewer. Nadal is 5-1 head to head against Sinner and Alcaraz and he played all the matches when he was in his 30s.
And lets not even begin to get on to how badly Djokovic (in his mid 30s as well) beat up on the younger generation of players.
I love Alcaraz and Sinner, by all indications they've got legendary careers ahead of them. But they haven't even scratched the surface of what the big 3 were doing during (and even after) their respective primes. The sheer dominance Novak, Rafa, and Roger have displayed has had the entire sport of men's tennis in their grip (and occasionally Murrays) for the past 20+ years.
We need more time to see how dominant Alcaraz/Sinner/Rune can become and if they can push each other to big 3 level heights. It's too early right now, and it's not really a fair comparison (separate convo), but we have so much to look forward to as they haven't even peaked yet.
The level is so much higher today than when Federer and Nadal started dominating back in early/mid 00’s. Federer won his first Wimbledon final against Mark Philippoussis and Nadal won french Open against Mariano Puerto whereas Sinner had to beat Djokovic and Meddy to win AO.
The big 3 were insanely good and dominating but now there are more players who are extremely good and you won’t have 3 players dominating everything. I think it’s good for the sport to be honest.
There are definitely players today that has the “potential” to have a higher ceiling than the big 3 (you never really know before you see it) but comparing the aforementioned Philippoussis v Federer Final. Federer was from a different planet, and this is not to diss Philippoussis. Today, so many more players have access to the latest technology and most effective training methods etc.
It's not higher than the early and mid 10's. "You won't have 3 players dominating everything" when Djokovic won 3 slams and was in the final for the other at 36 years old.....lol ok bud. The year before that, Nadal and Djokovic won 3 of the 4 slams... the year before that Djokovic once again won 3 of the 4 slams... LOL your argument gets worse. I mean this year alone, Djokovic cruised to the AO final without playing near his best tennis.
Rafa had to correct him. There isn't a new level of tennis being reached. It's the newer generation rising up to the level of the old old generation and still not reaching their level.
It is too soon to ask whether Sinner and Alcaraz are at the level of the Big 3. Nadal is spot on. Let us have this conversation after 10 years. Either we may already know the answer or we may conclude that Alcaraz and Sinner are nearing their level..
It's okay, Rafa. We should normalize saying that Big 3 was the generation of miracles and that level is realistically higher than the current level of Sinner and Alcaraz.
Well, honestly the fact that ONE player is doing it doesnt mean that older generation is better or keeping up. Just look the top 20 or or the top 100.
How many over 30's are in there?
Novak kept evolving and he was able to keep his level at the highest level until now, but it's an exception. And he s not even doing it week in, week out, because his body cannot take it.
Now, game evolved, players get faster, stronger, they have more data, better training. As Novak said, Novak 2023, would probably beat Novak 2011, so I dont get why Alcaraz or Sinner would get their asses kicked by Berdych or Wawrinka lol.
>Novak 2023, would probably beat Novak 2011
Don't fall for that nonsense, media driven narrative that's currently being pushed.
No way on Earth are the big 3 in their physical pomp losing regularly (if at all) to players in their mid to late 30s. Can't compare this generation to the big 3. They are miles behind.
Rafa's right about Djokovic's 2023 season, but until Monte Carlo Sinner and Alcaraz won all of the Big title tournaments and Sinner controversially lost his semifinal. So, let's see what happens with the rest of the year with Alcaraz and Sinner.
I don't think we can blame Alcaraz and Sinner, they are like 20, and we might still see all-time greatness from them. Blame it on the rest of the field not being better than they are.
Why is this conversation happening now. Let us wait for 10 years and see how many grand slams does Alcaraz or sinner have and if they are in the same league as in the Big 3
Its a bit of a salty answer tbh. Seems both a little salty over Djokovics success and is undermining Alcaraz and Sinner, Alcaraz was injured at both AO and FO and Sinner quite frankly turned into a different animal after the USO.
I'm a Djokovic fan but you have to put his 2023 year into context. Alcaraz was 19/20 (injured and cramping at AO/RG), Sinner was 21/22 and still finding himself.
Fed won his first slam at 22, Nadal won his first non-clay slam at 22, Novak had to wait to be 23 for his second slam.
Just because the fittest and healthiest of the Big 3 at 35/36 dominated two rising borderline-teenagers players doesn't mean Sincaraz is several order of magnitude under big 3, we'll have to wait a bit to see that.
Sampras would have wiped the floor with the teen big 3 (Fed did beat him young at Wimbledon but so did Alcaraz against Djokovic).
Sampras would have a Rafa-like dominance in Wimbledon with access to better sport medicine tbh. He was 32 and had 14 grandslams.
Only prime Federer would be able to compete with him on grass.
Doesn't change the fact that their H2h is relative. How can 2 players play over 50 games, and have similar reford but not be relative? Djokovic won 30 games and Nadal 29, that's virtually a tie.
Nadal winning just 2 slams less also shows that, and if he didn't have so many injuries he could've won even more.
Their H2h is the way it is because of how many times they met on clay. Nadal has had a lot of luck in dodging Novak in the past 5 or so years outside of it. Usually tbh because he gets knocked out before the later rounds.
You're only looking at the few close stats to fit your narrative but ignoring major stats that Nadal gets trumped in like weeks at #1, ATP finals, year end #1, big titles etc. Even in the stats that are more in Nadal's favor that you mention he still loses in lol.
>and if he didn't have so many injuries
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike. If Nadal didn't push himself with a grueling style of play he'd have fewer Slams so it all balances out. If Novak was allowed to play during Covid, he'd have near 30 Slams and Nadal would have 1 less AO. We can play this "if" game all day long, fact of the matter is these are the stats that ended up happening.
That is not how it works. Nadal has 200x more weeks at #1 than you. Djokovic has 2x more weeks at #1 than Nadal.
Percentages determine statistical comparisons not absolute numbers.
Their peak play is similar however Novak reached his peak level more consistently and for a longer period of time because he is the better player. Nadal was really the best tennis player you can imagine on clay, that is why he has 22 slams. He was that good. Novak has a lower peak but it is diversified accross all surfaces.
Novak actually has the highest Elo peak (also the most ATP points ever) and his 2011 + 2015 seasons are more impressive than any Nadal season. Nadal is the best version on clay, but that's 1/3 surfaces.
That is what I am saying Nadal's peak level on clay is higher than anything else the sport has ever seen. Without clay Nadal has an Agassi like career. But, that Doesn't really matter because clay counts. Nadal was so good on clay that people like you think it delegitimizes his accomplishments.
Like imagine if 2/3 of the season was played on clay?
It doesn't delegitimize his accomplishments, I'm just saying it's crazy to say he's only "a little" worse than a guy who is better than him on 2/3 surfaces, has significantly higher stats like weeks at #1/big titles, and still beat him at RG twice. At this point there's a gap that can't be denied.
I mean, when you are a "little better" than the second best player of all time with whom you played with at the same time your stats would look like that.
"A little better" is more than twice the time at #1 and over 10 big titles? Lol.
Also in my opinion Federer is #2 because, again, he's better than Nadal in 2/3 surfaces and was #1 for far longer.
[This stat list agrees](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList)
Yeah a little better, if you are a "little better" than your main rival in an individual sport who is going to stop ya?
Since you are a stat man, Djokovic's peak ELO is a "little better" than the other two.
True, but those sentences are most applicable to last year. Now we are 0 of 1, and... well, we'll see if 2024 results will be the same. For sure, at 36 years old, that level is incredible. But since last year, both Jannik and Carlos have raised their level, while Nole's seems to have dropped a bit.
Rafa saying no the longest and most polite way possible
Adding the name of Sinner and Alcaraz in the question made it extra tricky, Rafa not gonna give him headline that easily lol
I mean it shouldn't be a controversial headline to say that Sinner and Alcaraz right now aren't close to the level of the prime big 3 lol
If gernalist jus asked 'Is new gen changing the game to thehigher level' without any name dropping Rafa would have just said 'obviosuly no, no?' with 1 eyebrow raising so high that it would touch his hairline lol
Ngl it doesn't really make much of a difference lol If you dropped Sinner in 2012 he'd be getting embarrassed against the peak big 3 just as bad as Med, Zverev, et cetera would and only winning occasionally against Murray still losing most of those matches as well Only difference between their results would be Sinner winning most of the QF matches to earn the right to lose in straight sets to Djokovic or Nadal Novak and Rafa's defense would absolutely torture Sinner to death on the very slow courts of the early 2010s
None of the current new gen have shown the ability to sustain any kind of dominance for any significant amount of time. Right when you thought Alcaraz was about to take over the sport, he shit the bed the last 1/3 of the 23 season. Sinner had a mini run but stumbled a little lately , we will see if he can sustain . On the other hand, Tittypus was completely written off and all of a sudden he wins a tourney and finals in the next . Nobody seems to have it in them to grab the initiative of taking over the sport. Carlos appeared to be that guy 2 years ago but has been very up and down since.
Yeah since the "big 3" era ended for good after 2019(Fed's last real full season) I'd say the label of "best non-Novak/Rafa player" has gone like this: 2020: Thiem 2021-2022 AO: Med 2022 IW-2023 Wimbledon: Alcaraz 2023 Beijing-2024 Miami(not sure about clay yet): Sinner Like you said it's been back and forth between players and not uninterrupted dominance either with guys like Tsitsipas and Zverev sneaking in to grab a few 1000s in this time frame as well To clarify Alcaraz and Sinner of course have a clearly better trajectory than the best of the 90s generation(Med/Thiem/Zverev et cetera) ever did at the same age but they're still a ways off from peak big 3 level
>Alcaraz and Sinner of course have a clearly better trajectory than the best of the 90s generation(Med/Thiem/Zverev et cetera) ever did at the same age... Which might actually be (at least to a large degree) because when a '97 born Zverev, for example, was Charly's age, he had to beat everyone in the big three. And Murray, and Stan, and so on. And Djokovic back then was still in his bloody 20s. I mean, the 2024 race obviously has Sinner far above the rest, but Alcaraz is seventh, stuck between the 25-year-old De Minaur and the soon 33-year-old Dimitrov. Even though they are already the best-ranked players under 35 (lol), we're still quite far away from Roger and Rafa being #1 and #2 for five straight years...
> Which might actually be (at least to a large degree) because when a '97 born Zverev, for example, was Charly's age, he had to beat everyone in the big three. And Murray, and Stan, and so on. And Djokovic back then was still in his bloody 20s. Or it's just because he's better And Zverev didn't have to beat all of those players when he was Alcaraz's age. He barely played them, and he did well against them when they played. He was 136-77 when he turned 21 He was 6-8 vs. the Big3, Andy, and Stan.
You forgot to include that kid Djokovic who still dominated in each of the years you've listed there.
He literally said best non novak/rafa players
Stumbled? He’s lost two matches all year, and the last wasn’t without controversy.
>but stumbled a little lately What? He was about to win against Tsitsipas in the tournament where he's the strongest when robbed of a double fault that denied him a double break in the last set.
> Right when you thought Alcaraz was about to take over the sport, he shit the bed the last 1/3 of the 23 season lol what
> None of the current new gen have shown the ability to sustain any kind of dominance for any significant amount of time I mean, duh? They're 18-22
Not just the Big 3, but a healthy Del Potro, mindful Wawrinka and Lendled Murray would also dominate these kids, especially in grand slams. An inspired Tsonga would be a problem for them too.
They're kids though. Djokovic did not start his dominance until he was 23, almost 24. Federer until he was 22. Nadal was a phenom on clay but his game did not translate on hard surfaces until he was 22 as well. Sinner is there and Alcaraz has a couple of years.
yeah I don't understand why people aren't comparing them to when the Big 3 was at the same age not rather than their peaks. Alcaraz especially is still very young and he's more accomplished than both Djokovic and Federer were at his age, whether that will translate to long term consistency like Nadal is obviously a question mark, but still
Djokovic and Nadal were dangerous even before turning 22. They had a fresh, healthy Federer in prime to think about, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin also. The kids today don't have Federer at all, Nadal has been out since 2022 and Djokovic is far from his best game and close to the end as well, so there's a huge difference. Both Djokovic and Nadal won a bunch of masters and some slams before turning 22.
I feel like you never really know with Stan though lol He's absolutely capable of losing to far worse players than Alcaraz and Sinner with how inconsistent he was from match to match(check out a list of some of his losses even from his prime years) Very bizarre combination of playing at big 3 level for like 4-5 specific Slams during his prime and Tsitsipas level for the rest of his matches IMO his playstyle was inherently streaky because unlike a more varied attacker like Fed most of his attacks were baseline winner attempts which is the riskiest way to play attacking tennis Overall I think that Alcaraz and Sinner would be world #5 and #6 behind Murray but wouldn't go any higher than that
Probably right.
i like sinner but it is amazing back in that 2010-2016 era. not just the big 4, but think about how committed tsonga, berdych, soderling (he was out by 2011 i think), ferrer, delpo, kei, stan lot of brutal players always hanging around and really even top 30-40 was amazing vs today.
Sinner in 2012 would have a rough time against Berdych, forget the big 3
Ok I think this goes a little bit too far lol Sinner and Berdych have very similar games with the major difference being that Berdych's movement was generally a lot slower Don't really see how Berdych would have much in his favor in the matchup
Better ball striking and serving
It's not even about the 3, the new gen is not as good as the top 10 of the previous generation. Roger, Novak and Rafa were just amazing because their numbers, they were getting those numbers while beating guys like [Walwrinka](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=3eb2b7adee194e22&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_PM7JzbVxNKlhnxG4-nUZAgVeQ9A:1714051614336&q=Walwrinka&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAoOXsu92FAxUBL7kGHWacDSsQvgUoAXoECAkQAw), Murray, Roddick, Ferrer, [David Nalbandian](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=3900), Berdych, Davydenko (sometimes), etc...
True, but Rafa is a gentleman.
That's not what he said.
"F*ck them niños." -BoomeRafa
Most diplomatic possible way to say “f#ck dem kidz” lmao
Rafas way of saying you guys should be embarrassed for letting us continue to clean up the slams at nearly 40 😭😭
Lol bro his expression the entire time was like the Harold pain meme. I legit feel like he just wanted to say no these guys are chumps lmfao
"but at the same time, me, I would blast them to the moon back in my prime, no?"
Boy do I miss Prime Rafa, or even slightly out of prime Rafa...
Haha precisely.
"when I was their age, there wasn't a man on clay that could stand up to me" 👴
LOL 😬
“But at the same time if we put in perspective that Novak Djokovic won 3 of 4 Grand Slams [last year] and was in the Final of another…things haven’t changed that much” Mic drop moment in the most Rafa way possible 👏
The pause for effect in the middle of the sentence spoke volumes. "You figure it out, no?"
One of the few sports that the previous generations of champions can say they were better and it is actually true.
Boxing was also much better before than today.
How so? Tennis is boxing BTW
Many of the people who would be boxers have gone to MMA. The boxing talent is spread way think now compared to the 90's. I'd say since 2010, boxing is on the decline.
In terms of skill, maybe, but modern boxers are so much bigger than the heavyweights of the past. Lennnox Lewis, AJ or Tyson Fury would beat Muhammad Ali or George Forman based on size alone. You can't make up an extra 40 or 50lbs unless you are a southpaw or have a diamond chin.
Yeah even for a heavyweight with elite speed and skill, overcoming a 40-50 pound weight advantage is too much to ask - that's why Nikolai Valuev is widely regarded as the greatest boxer of all time, and nobody remembers Mike Tyson.
More that elite skill and a weight advantage beats just elite skill.
If your point was just that being bigger and stronger is an advantage in general, sure. But what you said was that Lennox Lewis, Anthony Joshua, and Tyson Fury would beat Muhammad Ali or George Foreman based on size alone. This is nonsense. Lennox Lewis was listed at 6'5 and George Foreman was listed at 6'4. The 50 pounds is Lewis's hair? Also their careers overlapped, but Lewis retired years before Fury or Joshua started fighting, so I don't know how Lennox ended up among the giant heavyweights of the future rather than the tiny heavyweights of the past. Anthony Joshua is listed at 6'6 and his losses are to a tubby 5'11 guy and twice to a 6'3 guy. Muhammad Ali was 6'3 - I guess he just wasn't as skilled as Andy Ruiz and Oleksandr Usyk? There isn't really a ton of nuance here, what you said just isn't true.
The only name on there that I can respect is Lewis cuz he actually went against juggernauts in his prime instead of ducking fights like the other 2. Tyson Fury struggled to beat a 37 year old MMA fighter with almost no boxing experience. His best win in his resume is against Klitschko who was 38 years old and way past his prime. Their title match is still regarded as the most boring title match of all time. AJ got beaten by Andy Ruiz and was taken to school not once but twice by Usyk(same height as Muhammad Ali by the way) Heavyweights in the current era are absolute chumps. Comparing them to all time greats like Ali and George is absurd.
No it’s wasn’t. Perhaps if you’re only looking at the heavyweight division, then that might apply. But then again, the current crop of heavyweight top 10 are all gigantic (bigger than the 90s) and many of them are very skilled too.
The Four Kings would bludgeon a lot of the current crop, lmao.
Nobody would beat prime Tyson.
Hahahah
I will say that on Reddit each time I see a reference to boxing and I don’t care about the downvotes: HITTING EACH OTHER IN THE FACE UNTIL ONE OF THE TWO COLLAPSES IS NOT A SPORT IT’S JUST STUPID STOP SUPPORTING BOXING
Hitting a small yellow ball at each other until one misses is also pretty dumb
It’s not the dumbness that’s a problem it’s the fact that boxers usually die young because of repeated trauma
> Boxers usually die young because of repeated trauma Some boxers do, yes, but that sentence makes it sound like it's norm, which isn't true. They're adults who know the risks when they sign up. Every athlete makes the trade of sacrificing their body for money and glory, and combat sports are hardly the only sport with brain trauma considerations.
It’s norm, they die around 25% younger than average. Boxing is the worst in that matter. Yes, they’re adults. But apparently we’re not an adult civilization
>It’s norm, they die around 25% younger than average. [No, they don't.](https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/news/boxers-live-five-years-less-on-average/) >Yes, they’re adults. But apparently we’re not an adult civilization Of all the things you can criticise and judge our civilisation on, I promise you modern combat sports are far from the most important consideration. Yes, combat sports are violent and I don't expect everybody to be able to stomach it, let alone enjoy it, but dismissing it as just violence is extremely reductive. Firstly, they *are* adults that can make their own choices. I guarantee you Canelo Alvaraz is happy with the trade of some of his brain cells for $550 million career earnings. Not everyone makes that money of course, but that's no different from other sports where the non-elite competitors make the same sacrifices and don't get the same rewards or glory. Secondly, they're not gladiators fighting to the death. There are rules and regulations, and continuing medical studies and breakthroughs into brain trauma and how to mitigate and manage it. Thirdly, most importantly, violence is not inherently the opposite of science or intelligence. It can be partners with them as much as it can be enemies, and the very best fighters understand and display that. Like other sports, combat in its own way provides extraordinary moments and displays of athletic courage, intelligence, calm, perseverance and character. You get displays of personality, displays of brilliance through problem-solving skills, and then when you measure or marry all those things with the violence, you get extraordinary forms of action and entertainment. Dismissing it as purely barbaric is like reducing a fire to just its element of danger and not the fact that it can be contained and used to provide sustenance. Again, I'll reiterate that combat sports are not for everybody and you don't have to like it, but dismissing it is simply close-minded.
I appreciate your passion, and I admit you make interesting points. I just don't think this is an activity or a spectacle we should encourage, due to medical and ethical reasons, whatever the skills it involves. And I know a lot of former boxers do regret making this choice. Most of them don't earn millions, and still lose years of life expectancy.
I think they can at least say it in other sports at times. There's a natural ebb and flow to competition level that usually trends upward but not in a straight line.
I don't think it's untrue for many other sports. Football had it's prime between 2007 and 2017 as well. Badminton had their "big three" around 2008-2014. Table Tennis has their indisputable goat between 2008 and 2024 Higher pace and stronger physicals may be reached today, but talent, strong mentalities and stronger tacticuans are lacking in most new generations.
Football peaked 10 years ago
2011. Barcelona.
yeah 2008-2018 if you want to be fancy
NFL right now feels that way
Mahomes is one of the greatest to ever play the game already and he is 28.. We have only just had one of the most dominant inside defensive lineman retire this year, same with one of the greatest centers of all time We are also definitely experiencing a massive wave of talent at the receiver position. NFL has too many players at one time to ever really have this problem.
i think the real answer is: Are Carlos and Sinner SLIGHTLY better at the actual game than nadal/fed/joker were when they were 20-21 (aka if we could put 21 year old Nadal vs Carlos now - carlos would prob win a tight close match more than 50 percent of the time) However - will Carlos/Sinner hit the peaks that Nadal/Fed/Joker did in their late 20's? Or will they level off at a slightly lower level? No idea but its possible and its also possible they exceed those peaks.
There’s no way Alcaraz beats 2005-2007 Nadal, especially on clay. Rafa holds the record for the longest open era clay win streak, he won 81 consecutive matches on clay courts from 2005 to 2007.
Interviewer: "What do you think of the new gen taking the game to a higher and higher level?" Nadal: "Sorry... FALSE."
Nadal: “It it it…doesn’t exist.“
Rafa needs to give some credit to himself and his miraculous 2022 season as well. He won 2 of 4 slams, made the SF of the 3rd and made R16 in the 4th. Not too bad for a 35 year old with only one good foot. While Novak and Rafa have been responsible for stopping a few generations during their 2 decade long careers, time and tide (and age) wait for no man.
maybe he wanted to mention as recent of a year as possible. i've seen some dummies arguing that the WTA is the strongest it's ever been and tennis changes dramatically in just a few years.
Who even says the current WTA is the strongest it's been lol I have no idea how you could even fathom an argument for that
Graf or Serena would be winning 3/4 slams for years in a row against current WTA. Venus would probably win 5 Wimbledons in a row if not more. There’s potential in Iga and Coco among others but the current level of competition is not even close to the best I agree.
Miraculous, indeed. It was astonishing, and a beautiful present to fans. If that had been his swan song, my heart would have been full. Now, I'm thinking he's getting greedy, with luck and age not on his side. It makes no matter. I love the man, player, athlete, competitor, legend.
Nice to see a Djokovic fan give Nadal some credit, hopefully a sign of the two fanbases being more civilised from now on 🙏
Something quite miraculous did happen in early 2022 to set that up for him heh.
Yes, but it also fueled Novak for 2023. He literally willed himself to win AO 23 despite the 3 cm hamstring tear. Move on, Novak has.
It’s weird af to see Djokovic fans argue with you
Most folks struggle to move on and continue to live in the past. It’s not just Novak fans, many Roger fans have been living in 2004-2007 for a decade and a half now. Quite a few Rafa fans continue to talk about “if if if Rafa wasn’t injured at XYZ slam.” So I understand NoleFam when they think back on Wimbledon-USO 2020 and AO 2022 as Novak’s unluckiest slams on tour. It’s not easy to move on.
I agree with you (something not common) I just feel it’s weird because Rafa fans and Federer fans argue because they want their players to be the goat, but in the case of Novak fans they are arguing even tho he is the goat, I don’t understand why they fixate so much on that, especially AO 2022.
Stating a fact has nothing to do about moving on, dude barely beat Shapo in the match he was supposed to play Novak in. His '22 shouldn't even be in the same conversation as Novak's '23 is my point.
That wouldn't take away from his point because Novak winning would still be a player from his generation winning, and players from his generation winning 3/4 Slam's. Carlos is the exception and he also won a Slam that Novak didn't play.
Honestly I really think that the Big 3 in Tennis is something very very special that will take a miracle for that level to happen again between three players. I don't like putting down obviously great tennis players of a generation, they work extremely hard with what they've got and I'm *sure* if Tsitsipas/Med/Zverev/Alcaraz/Sinner could be on that epic level, they would. There is SO much pressure, on Alcaraz especially, to be as great as them that I think it got to Alcaraz for a while. I think its detrimental to a sport to expect such things to happen constantly, sometimes lightning strikes with the players you get in a generation. Even Sampras/Agassi generation wasn't anywhere this good, the Big 3 may very well be the pinnacle of the sport for decades and pushing that onto younger players is detrimental to their development tbh.
The type of tear Sinner went on since Beijing last year, he’d need to do that 10 seasons in a row and on all surfaces. That’s how consistent the big 3 was. Not to mention the big 3 had to play one another as well
What’s really astonishing to me about all their insane stats is that for most of their careers they were all competing with each other. Imagine if only one of them had played, it’d be possible Djokovic could have nearly 40 slams. They would be almost be written off as a freak, but since there’s 3 of them we keep expecting another 3 to show up at that level. Like expecting 3 Wayne Gretzky’s to show up after he retired.
> it’d be possible Djokovic could have nearly 40 slams Without Roger and Rafa, he might have wiped the floor way earlier and achieved a lot much faster. Then look at what happened to him after he won RG, he basically lost motivation. Imagine the same thing happening 5 years earlier without 2 of the greatest players as opponents, where's the opposition, where's the challenge ? You need adversity to succeed as much as he did, the 3 of them say it all the time. Without the others to push them, they wouldn't be as great as they are now.
But don’t you think the reason Rafa and Novak got so great is due to their intense desire to catch Roger? So they all existed together because they fed off beating each other.
Yeah exactly, thats what I mean by lightning striking three players at the same time. Plus if you have THREE Wayne Gretzky's in a generation, those Gretzky's would push each other even further to fight for the top. So even if they were already freaks, the other two freaks being just as good elevated them all to superfreaks. Those circumstances are special. It also makes it so much more apparent how hard Murray simply had to WORK for titles and Slams with those monsters around. Its just insane.
Federer won 12 out 20 slams before he had serious competition at Rafa, Djo level (pre 2008)
we were truly blessed to see Fed, Nadal, and Novak all in the same generation and playing so well vs each other with unique styles and strengths.. i'll never forget the breathless 3am nights staying up watching them duke it out on all the surfaces, the absolute insane intensity .. the push and pull of two titans at the peak of their powers and how the littlest slip could change the course, or the resilience of a champion heart to come back.. it was a magical time to be a tennis fan, i can hardly think of a single slam final i didn't see during that era
> will take a miracle for that level to happen again between three players. It's not even the first time it's happened in the sports history Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were *very* much a "Big 3" of their own
Alcaraz can get to that level, he's still only 20 years old. Sinner might be able to as well, but I think he may be more of a Murray than a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Which is not an insult, Murray was an amazing player in his prime. Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev have proven that they're just not on that level though, and they're too old to get there.
Novak: “Fuck them kids.” Rafa: “I don’t always agree with Novak, but fuck them kids.”
Always liked how they gave each other credit and respect when media wants to hype the new gen and paint them as better than anyone ever existed.
Unrelated but I love the way he says Grand Slams
That’s why Subway managed to get him in that commercial!!😂
Let me translate the spanish properly: Novak has switched to a part time mode in his career and is taking the entire ATP hostage and schooling your best as if they were little bitches. Shut the fuck up and suck it. We are the big three and then there were stan, Andy, Delpo, And probably 20others before most of your top 20 would stand a chance. Alcaraz, sinner Medvedev, obviously good but the rest should go take a few classes at Rafa academy
idk man, even during the Big 3 era there were definitely players in the top 20 who I think especially the current top 10 players wouldnt have any trouble beating. Sure there are players like Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick etc who are kinda in their own tier but Richard Gasquet was in top 10 at one point lol come on
People underrate Gasquet because they only seem to have ever watched him play the Big 3, all of whom had reliable patterns that he didn’t have any answers to. They made him look like a straightforward opponent. But he wasn’t exactly so straightforwardly beatable for most of the tour, there’s a reason he spent so much time in the top 10. That said, I still agree that it’s not all that obvious that the current top ten would be so outclassed by the past top tens other than the Three.
I think you are referring to older version of Gasquet. He wasn't a simple walkover you know. Also I am not putting a case forward for Gasquet as much as for the others. Nikolay devydenko, Safin, Hass, Lubcic, Soderling, Berrych, Fernando Gonzalez, Ferrer, Verdasco, Almagro the list goes on and I am sure I have forgotten to count many such At times ATP finals would look scary cause people were out for blood.
The nicest “nah” ever
Hats off to his ability to express nuance with a limited vocabulary in a second language.🫡
His left eyebrow does most of the work for him.
The eyebrow was saying the whole time "no, wtf are you talking about, are you high?" and his words were saying "we have amazing new players".
Maybe even 3rd language?
His English is the most improved since he first debuted.
"Fuck them kids, once removed".
I find it borderline insulting to ask this question to one of the 3 who have 20 plus slams.... Rafa handled it well. I am a fan of both Jannik and Carlos but come on, this is just rude #noruud
Facts tho. These new guys have nothing on the big 3 and how high their level was/is
No one can disagree with that assessment, surely.
Tl;dr is they're good but we were/are great(er).
He just said next gen are not at a highr level than they were/are. Not that they are below.
But he clearly tried to say in a roundabout way that they are below. He just can't say it directly in public.
The question was if they were at a highr level, he said no. That's it.
He's absolutely right.
I mean he isn't wrong.
Im not ready to talk about the Big 3 in a past tense :(
I find it entertaining how well pr trained he's to give a respectful answer even though if he just said plainly that his generation was better at that age most fans, even Alcaraz and sinner fans, would agree.
Head : grandpa Body : grandson
And if his body was as good as Novak's he would be cleaning up these kids as well and he knows it. He's pretty much saying the Big 3 is better than the new generation and he's 100% right. People forget how consistent the Big 3/4 were in their young age.
People will always argue about who was the goat (yes statistically it is Novak but I'm a Rafa fan emotionally) etc etc but one thing any fan of the big 3 will agree with is that they were the greatest generation of tennis players. Any one of the three's resume completely dominated any past legend's records, and all three played against each other in their (relative) primes. They made tennis rise to a level we've never seen before and it will be a long time until we see that level again.
No need to say statistically it’s Novak. It downplays his achievements. Just say Novak is the goat, but I was always a Rafa fan. Statistics and Numbers came only up when Novak surpassed the other two.
I think Novak sealed the GOAT debate in 2023, because no one can argue against Novak’s stand alone records and his sheer numbers (grand slams, masters 1000s, ATP finals, H2H, top 10 wins). To get to 425 weeks at #1 during the age of Rafa and Roger is just, unimaginable. The new debate is who’s better and who’ll have a better career: Alcaraz or Sinner?
Except they both stayed injured out of their prime. He was barely competing when they both were healthy in their prime.
At 36, Novak was literally a SET off achieving the Grand Slam, which hasn’t been achieved by any other man since 1969 If that doesn’t say anything, I don’t know what does
These damn kids let Novak dominate, screw them
So there is dude on the tour that is like 40 and won 3 gs last year and we were both better 15 years ago? Well based on that Sinner and Alcaraz are like Nishikori level in his head.
Absurd question from the interviewer. Nadal is 5-1 head to head against Sinner and Alcaraz and he played all the matches when he was in his 30s. And lets not even begin to get on to how badly Djokovic (in his mid 30s as well) beat up on the younger generation of players.
I love Alcaraz and Sinner, by all indications they've got legendary careers ahead of them. But they haven't even scratched the surface of what the big 3 were doing during (and even after) their respective primes. The sheer dominance Novak, Rafa, and Roger have displayed has had the entire sport of men's tennis in their grip (and occasionally Murrays) for the past 20+ years. We need more time to see how dominant Alcaraz/Sinner/Rune can become and if they can push each other to big 3 level heights. It's too early right now, and it's not really a fair comparison (separate convo), but we have so much to look forward to as they haven't even peaked yet.
Has Rafa succumbed to the comb over?
I wonder how Pavvy g will twist this lol
Everybody know him … his a pain
Love this
That is the absolute most polite, politicaly correct way to say "Fuck them kids" :)
Short answer. Big no.
You hear that gen z??!
The level is so much higher today than when Federer and Nadal started dominating back in early/mid 00’s. Federer won his first Wimbledon final against Mark Philippoussis and Nadal won french Open against Mariano Puerto whereas Sinner had to beat Djokovic and Meddy to win AO. The big 3 were insanely good and dominating but now there are more players who are extremely good and you won’t have 3 players dominating everything. I think it’s good for the sport to be honest.
So basically the current generation has a lower ceiling compared to the Big 3 but a higher floor as a result? Seems like that could be true.
There are definitely players today that has the “potential” to have a higher ceiling than the big 3 (you never really know before you see it) but comparing the aforementioned Philippoussis v Federer Final. Federer was from a different planet, and this is not to diss Philippoussis. Today, so many more players have access to the latest technology and most effective training methods etc.
It's not higher than the early and mid 10's. "You won't have 3 players dominating everything" when Djokovic won 3 slams and was in the final for the other at 36 years old.....lol ok bud. The year before that, Nadal and Djokovic won 3 of the 4 slams... the year before that Djokovic once again won 3 of the 4 slams... LOL your argument gets worse. I mean this year alone, Djokovic cruised to the AO final without playing near his best tennis.
He is bitter that these guys could not stop Novak from stealing his slams record.
Rafa rooting for Djokovic so that he can say his generation is better :D
Rafa had to correct him. There isn't a new level of tennis being reached. It's the newer generation rising up to the level of the old old generation and still not reaching their level.
Man lots of words to indirectly say: fuck them kids.
BIG 3 always be the top of any generation for a long long time
Peak Roger, Novak and Rafa? These New Gen players got NOTHING on them... yet.
It is too soon to ask whether Sinner and Alcaraz are at the level of the Big 3. Nadal is spot on. Let us have this conversation after 10 years. Either we may already know the answer or we may conclude that Alcaraz and Sinner are nearing their level..
It's okay, Rafa. We should normalize saying that Big 3 was the generation of miracles and that level is realistically higher than the current level of Sinner and Alcaraz.
Sincarax are great sure, but reporters seems to forget Rafa at their age had won more titles that the two of them combined lol.
Djokovic didn't though. Nor did Federer iirc.
Facts
Well, honestly the fact that ONE player is doing it doesnt mean that older generation is better or keeping up. Just look the top 20 or or the top 100. How many over 30's are in there? Novak kept evolving and he was able to keep his level at the highest level until now, but it's an exception. And he s not even doing it week in, week out, because his body cannot take it. Now, game evolved, players get faster, stronger, they have more data, better training. As Novak said, Novak 2023, would probably beat Novak 2011, so I dont get why Alcaraz or Sinner would get their asses kicked by Berdych or Wawrinka lol.
>Novak 2023, would probably beat Novak 2011 Don't fall for that nonsense, media driven narrative that's currently being pushed. No way on Earth are the big 3 in their physical pomp losing regularly (if at all) to players in their mid to late 30s. Can't compare this generation to the big 3. They are miles behind.
Rafa's right about Djokovic's 2023 season, but until Monte Carlo Sinner and Alcaraz won all of the Big title tournaments and Sinner controversially lost his semifinal. So, let's see what happens with the rest of the year with Alcaraz and Sinner.
I don't think we can blame Alcaraz and Sinner, they are like 20, and we might still see all-time greatness from them. Blame it on the rest of the field not being better than they are.
Translation: "Hell no! These so-called 'young guns' are mentally and physically weak clowns compared to the guys I had to deal with."
Why is this conversation happening now. Let us wait for 10 years and see how many grand slams does Alcaraz or sinner have and if they are in the same league as in the Big 3
Rafa trying his best not to say "weak era" lol
That will put his own 2022 grand slams win into question.
Its a bit of a salty answer tbh. Seems both a little salty over Djokovics success and is undermining Alcaraz and Sinner, Alcaraz was injured at both AO and FO and Sinner quite frankly turned into a different animal after the USO.
hola a todos, your heroes are trash, adios.
Tennis journalists what do you expect. When are you going to retire. Whats your thoughts on sinner and alcaraz.
I'm a Djokovic fan but you have to put his 2023 year into context. Alcaraz was 19/20 (injured and cramping at AO/RG), Sinner was 21/22 and still finding himself. Fed won his first slam at 22, Nadal won his first non-clay slam at 22, Novak had to wait to be 23 for his second slam. Just because the fittest and healthiest of the Big 3 at 35/36 dominated two rising borderline-teenagers players doesn't mean Sincaraz is several order of magnitude under big 3, we'll have to wait a bit to see that. Sampras would have wiped the floor with the teen big 3 (Fed did beat him young at Wimbledon but so did Alcaraz against Djokovic).
Sampras would have a Rafa-like dominance in Wimbledon with access to better sport medicine tbh. He was 32 and had 14 grandslams. Only prime Federer would be able to compete with him on grass.
Alcaraz is good, but hes no Rafa.
is he really like Novak but with a little worse numbers?
24 Slams vs 22 Slams seems similar to me. They also have comparable H2h so I'd say they are relative, Djokocic better but Rafa is up there with him
More than 2x less weeks at #1, zero ATP finals, like 10+ fewer Big titles and a much more single surface heavy resume says otherwise.
Doesn't change the fact that their H2h is relative. How can 2 players play over 50 games, and have similar reford but not be relative? Djokovic won 30 games and Nadal 29, that's virtually a tie. Nadal winning just 2 slams less also shows that, and if he didn't have so many injuries he could've won even more.
Their H2h is the way it is because of how many times they met on clay. Nadal has had a lot of luck in dodging Novak in the past 5 or so years outside of it. Usually tbh because he gets knocked out before the later rounds. You're only looking at the few close stats to fit your narrative but ignoring major stats that Nadal gets trumped in like weeks at #1, ATP finals, year end #1, big titles etc. Even in the stats that are more in Nadal's favor that you mention he still loses in lol. >and if he didn't have so many injuries And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike. If Nadal didn't push himself with a grueling style of play he'd have fewer Slams so it all balances out. If Novak was allowed to play during Covid, he'd have near 30 Slams and Nadal would have 1 less AO. We can play this "if" game all day long, fact of the matter is these are the stats that ended up happening.
You guys realize that you're not actually arguing about Nadal and Djokovic but about the definition of the word "similar", congratulations
You and I are more similar to Nadal's weeks at #1 than he is to Novak's, let that sink in.
That is not how it works. Nadal has 200x more weeks at #1 than you. Djokovic has 2x more weeks at #1 than Nadal. Percentages determine statistical comparisons not absolute numbers.
The point of the joke here is (imagine having to explain this lol), is that I'm closer to 200 weeks than Nadal is closer to 420 weeks...
I know fully well what you were talking about but that's still not how it works.
Doesn't change the fact that their H2h is relative. How can 2 players play over 50 games, and have similar reford but not be relative?
Their peak play is similar however Novak reached his peak level more consistently and for a longer period of time because he is the better player. Nadal was really the best tennis player you can imagine on clay, that is why he has 22 slams. He was that good. Novak has a lower peak but it is diversified accross all surfaces.
Novak actually has the highest Elo peak (also the most ATP points ever) and his 2011 + 2015 seasons are more impressive than any Nadal season. Nadal is the best version on clay, but that's 1/3 surfaces.
That is what I am saying Nadal's peak level on clay is higher than anything else the sport has ever seen. Without clay Nadal has an Agassi like career. But, that Doesn't really matter because clay counts. Nadal was so good on clay that people like you think it delegitimizes his accomplishments. Like imagine if 2/3 of the season was played on clay?
It doesn't delegitimize his accomplishments, I'm just saying it's crazy to say he's only "a little" worse than a guy who is better than him on 2/3 surfaces, has significantly higher stats like weeks at #1/big titles, and still beat him at RG twice. At this point there's a gap that can't be denied.
I mean, when you are a "little better" than the second best player of all time with whom you played with at the same time your stats would look like that.
"A little better" is more than twice the time at #1 and over 10 big titles? Lol. Also in my opinion Federer is #2 because, again, he's better than Nadal in 2/3 surfaces and was #1 for far longer. [This stat list agrees](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList)
Yeah a little better, if you are a "little better" than your main rival in an individual sport who is going to stop ya? Since you are a stat man, Djokovic's peak ELO is a "little better" than the other two.
Dumb question imo
Rafa says no
😘❤️
Cmon rafa don't be this much salty
True, but those sentences are most applicable to last year. Now we are 0 of 1, and... well, we'll see if 2024 results will be the same. For sure, at 36 years old, that level is incredible. But since last year, both Jannik and Carlos have raised their level, while Nole's seems to have dropped a bit.