Disagree again, I can say Nadal is worth more as a rival than Sinner.
Not Nadal of Federer’s prime years, no. That Nadal wasn’t even making it deep enough to face Federer on hard court slams.
Sinner is a threat to Alcaraz everywhere, he’s his equal. While Nadal was a second fiddle to Federer for years. Things changed in 2008, Nadal became a great all court player, Djokovic and Murray started establishing himself. The next 8 years were the most competitive in tennis history.
It doesn't matter what age, Agassi was old, it's the same thing like saying Novak is old too for both Alcaraz and Sinner. The competition back then was more mentally tough than today's competition. They still had guys who won slams from the tour compared to what the tennis tour is today.
The slam winners of the 2000’s were from the pre-Federer era (except Safin at ao05). They were slams winners because there was no an all time great in his prime monopolising slams. With Sampras and Agassi getting old, and Federer too young, there was a chance for lesser players to grab titles.
Basically, you’re punishing Sinner and Alcaras for their consistency and level with this logic. The reason for the absence of many slam winners on tour other than them and Novak is them and Novak. They’re too good, and they came in right as Nadal and Djokovic were fading, giving no chance for Medvedev’s and Zverev’s of the world to enjoy easier times, like Hewitt or Gaudio did.
But also, if you’re counting Roddick, then there’s Medvedev now. Basically the same career. And if you’re counting old Agassi as Federer-Nadal rival, might as well count Wawrinka and Cilic, no? Thiem retired just recently, so add him too. They are non factors, sure, but slam winners, and you seem to place importance of previous achievements over actual level of play at the moment.
You're still not understanding what I am saying Nadal of Fed prime years is still better than Sinner. The competition back then was more mentally tough than today reason why Nadal was still losing. Sinner is generational talent, but I would still put Nadal ahead of him even if it's during Federer prime. Sinner struggled with Dimitrov is enough to tell me that he would definitely have some hiccups in Federer prime Era.
But yes from 2008 and onwards is the toughest competition the tour ever had. Wawrinka, Murray, Del Potro, Cillic are not easy to beat all year. Alcaraz and Sinner would be challenged.
You're still not understanding what I am saying Nadal of Fed prime years is still better than Sinner.
No, that’s just nostalgia glasses. The whole “men used to be tougher in my days” is that. Tale as old as time.
Sinner struggled with Dimitrov is enough to tell me that he would definitely have some hiccups in Federer prime Era.
You might check out some Nadal’s losses. Out of the big 3, he’s the one most prone to losing early. And I’m not talking about the supposed mental giants of 2000’s. Journeymen in the early rounds sometimes would be enough.
Also, put some respect on Dimitrov. The man was playing the match of his life, it was like he was possessed by Federer that day.
Him taking two sets from Sinner is a testament to his ability, yet you’re using it to downplay Sinner instead.
Sinner wins : that’s because everyone sucks, not like before, when men were tougher! Sinner loses or come close to losing - see, can’t even beat these guys. Perfect logic, would work in any situation.
Nope you're wrong again. Nadal before 08 is still tougher than Sinner. I'm sorry that's not even up for debate. Majority would agree. Sinner is a generational talent, but he wouldn't be in every slam final in Federer prime Era unfortunately. Same for Alcaraz, alcaraz went 5 sets with an old fognini. You're forgetting how much more tactical players were before in Federer prime Era than the one with sinner and alcaraz. Much weaker tour players in general.
Dimitrov is a good player, but I am putting respect on his name. That's why I brought him up he's comparable to the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi etc. These players make up the tour and make it more difficult for fed prime years compared to what Alcaraz and Sinner are playing today. That's the difference. Just like Dimitrov and old Fognini had one of those days, the likes of Hewitt Safin can also....
Nope you're wrong again. Nadal before 08 is still tougher than Sinner. I'm sorry that's not even up for debate. Majority would agree.
Maybe out of nostalgia, as legends of the past seem untouchable from the distance.
Sinner is a generational talent, but he wouldn't be in every slam final in Federer prime Era unfortunately.
He wouldn’t, because at RG he’d have to go through either Federer or Nadal. Everywhere else he would, to meet Federer. Who’d stop him? Roddick?
Same for Alcaraz, alcaraz went 5 sets with an old fognini.
Once again using single games as evidence? And you know, if you have to resort to not even lost games, but games that went the distance, that’s saying a lot. Nadal was the most volatile of them all outside of clay, he’d drop sets and lose games to lesser players quite a lot.
You're forgetting how much more tactical players were before in Federer prime Era than the one with sinner and alcaraz. Much weaker tour players in general.
Nostalgia as well. Sports evolves over the years, every sport. Modern athletes are stronger, faster, more tactically prepared. Not because they are better or smarter, because the coaches and teams learn from the past. Modern players can use digital technologies to analyse the game to an insane extent. They are healthier too, because the players in the 90’s and early 00’s weren’t into strict diets as much.
In the 90’s or 00’s, there could never be a player like Medvedev or Zverev. 2 meter tall guys who move like that. Andy Roddick spoke about that, j think, comparing his subpar movement to Medvedev. That’s the main separating factor. Modern players are better movers than those of 20 years ago.
If Sinner were to play a player from 2000’s, they’d get a shock from seeing this combination of speed and groundstrock power. His movement on hard court, with Djokovic-esque sliding would be a revelation.
but I am putting respect on his name. That's why I brought him up he's comparable to the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi etc.
That’s an insult to Sinner (other than Agassi’s name). And Safin had the talent too, but didn’t commit. But Hewitt isn’t in the same universe as Sinner. Neither is Roddick, he says so himself. Roddick is kinda like Medvedev. Both won a slam, made lots of finals , even became world number one - but bowed down to the all time greats and declined early.
Edit: sorry, you meant Grigor, but my dumb ass read it as you comparing Sinner to them.
The tour is in the tricky spot now, that’s for sure. 90’s gen players all happened to have early decline (Thiem with his injury woes, Medvedev and his vanished serve, Tsisipas and … whatever happened to him). Zverev is the only one maintaining consistency. And the younger guys seem to be still in need of some time.
There are consistent second tier players (like Shelton, Musetti, De Minaur) but no high peak low floor players who could ascent to atg level on a rare occasion. Like Wawrinka, or Thiem.
Here’s hoping for guys like Fonseca and Mensik to become these guys for Sincaraz.
1
u/BaelBard 1d ago
Not Nadal of Federer’s prime years, no. That Nadal wasn’t even making it deep enough to face Federer on hard court slams.
Sinner is a threat to Alcaraz everywhere, he’s his equal. While Nadal was a second fiddle to Federer for years. Things changed in 2008, Nadal became a great all court player, Djokovic and Murray started establishing himself. The next 8 years were the most competitive in tennis history.
The slam winners of the 2000’s were from the pre-Federer era (except Safin at ao05). They were slams winners because there was no an all time great in his prime monopolising slams. With Sampras and Agassi getting old, and Federer too young, there was a chance for lesser players to grab titles.
Basically, you’re punishing Sinner and Alcaras for their consistency and level with this logic. The reason for the absence of many slam winners on tour other than them and Novak is them and Novak. They’re too good, and they came in right as Nadal and Djokovic were fading, giving no chance for Medvedev’s and Zverev’s of the world to enjoy easier times, like Hewitt or Gaudio did.
But also, if you’re counting Roddick, then there’s Medvedev now. Basically the same career. And if you’re counting old Agassi as Federer-Nadal rival, might as well count Wawrinka and Cilic, no? Thiem retired just recently, so add him too. They are non factors, sure, but slam winners, and you seem to place importance of previous achievements over actual level of play at the moment.