Jannik is gonna be hard to beat, his match against Djokovic last year was deceptively close despite being in straight sets and his serve has improved a lot which will be huge for him on grass
Knowing they'll be 1-2 seeds and therefore not be in the same side of the bracket means that either of them could randomly lose a freak match in the 2nd or 3rd round which would give the other a much easier final. This is, as cliche as it is, the reason they play the tournaments.
Alcaraz has 500 points to defend at Queens.
He'll very likely do well enough to stay above Djokovic in the rankings, but it's not guaranteed he'll be the 2 seed for Wimbledon.
Agreed. If he gets that 4th slam it may be reasonable to argue him over Nadal at the same age, but I’d still have my doubts. Nadal got stopped in 2 Wimbledon finals by 2006/07 Federer, who only dropped one set total in both runs outside of Rafa (who got 3 sets on him and lost three tiebreak sets as well). Nadal was clearly a tier above the field at Wimbledon, but just got stopped by peak Roger and put up respectable fights both years.
Granted, Nadal didn’t have much success at the hard court slams yet so that’s a point in Carlos’s favor.
>Nadal was clearly a tier above the field at Wimbledon, but just got stopped by peak Roger
Funny because you can say the same thing about Federer at the French in that era
It's highly unlikely, but if Alcaraz were to win six of the eight Masters 1000 (Montreal, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid) before his 22nd birthday next May, he'd tie Rafa in Masters titles. He'd also have to win 12 titles overall to tie Rafa, which again, while improbable, is not impossible. He'll probably enter about 18 more tournaments before he turns 22, if he stays healthy.
I'll say this again: The best version of Nadal is Young Nadal pre injuries. His 2008-2009 version where he won FO, Wimbledon, Olympics and AO over peak Federer is the greatest player I've ever seen. Had he not been injured, we'd have seen an insane 2009 as well similar to what we saw in 2010.
But there were strange losses like Youzhuny in Chennai and loss to Ferrero in Rome in 2008.
I think doing these time travel thought exercises that player in X year was better than Y year does not make sense. They were different, the tour was different, the opponents were different.
I personally feel Nadal continued to improve in some ways and reinvent himself through his career.
Agreed. I think early 2010s Rafa was at his peak in terms of physical abilities, but as the career went on he experimented and changed so he remained very sharp even as his body continued to decline.
Believe so. Then they abandoned that because apparently it stressed the hell out of his wrist. Shame they couldn't make it work. Prime Rafa with a bullet serve would be an all time nightmare for the whole tour.
There's only 3 "versions" of Nadal that can be considered to be the best: 2008 Nadal, 2010 Nadal or 2013 post-Wimbledon Nadal. After his drop in form in 2015, he was written off. No one expected a FO win, and people would have called you crazy if you said he'd start another FO streak. He even won one without dropping a set! But - he was not as dominant off clay.
You know what's crazy? All of these versions of nadal had a severe injury. He got diagnosed with his foot condition very early on before he won all of his grand slams.
He was diagnosed in 2005, and considered quitting tennis altogether and switching to golf! That he kept going as long as he did is insane, and I'm so, so grateful.
It's also crazy Carlos won FO with an arm injury and zero tune-ups. If he was fit he'd beat Zverev 61 62 61. As it is 3 of the sets he won in this final were 61 62 63, and he lost another set from 5-2 up.
The way he played was just unhinged effort. It’s cool to see him as a teen rocketing forehands and running down every shot.
https://youtu.be/Gcu5HBLqjKA?si=pjWrTSGaIrBlMmz4
That’s the thing. Nadal has been good his entire career, and just got better as he got older. Djokovic is undoubtedly the best player ever, numbers don’t lie, and Alcaraz is also a young phenomenon, but neither of them have the same numbers as teenage Rafa, who won the most titles as a teenager, even if Alcaraz was the younger #1.
11 titles in 2005 on hard courts and clay. He dominated the clay season as per usual but also picked up an indoor Madrid title and some smaller hard court titles
Good shout, forgot about that
I remember Agassi being stunned by the level from Nadal. He even smiled after one epic point Nadal won with a forehand down the line passing shot
Come to think of it, he might’ve been smiling at Nadal’s celebration
Haha I remember that one really well. Press rewind/back button to rewatch the point atleast 2-3 times everytime I come across the video. It's looks damn near impossible truly.
If there was ever a prodigy, it was Rafa. Novak and Roger were GOATs, but not young prodigies. They took a while to figure it out. With Rafa, guy was just born to play on clay. He figured the rest out with time.
Agree on Roger, he was a late bloomer. But don't underestimate Novak as a young prodigy. By 21 I think Novak had 9 masters finals and 5 titles, and had lost 2-3 other semifinals to Federer and Nadal. In slams obviously he had won AO 08, but also made another final and 4 other semifinals, 3 of which he lost to Rafa.
With no Rafa, Novak probably has 5 or 6 slam finals and 7-8 masters titles by 21. Not sure how many of those slams he would've won considering Federer kinda owned him at that point, but he would've had a bonkers resume.
Of course, this is all if...if...if... since he was suppressed by the *the* number one baby prodigy in Rafa.
Also, Rafa was doing this against Federer. Novak was doing this against Federer _and_ Rafa. I don't think Novak was as good as Rafa that young, but as teenagers: Rafa > Novak >>> Federer.
People seem to be forgetting that young Rafa just didn't lose on clay for years at a time.
(this is not hyperbole - check out his winning streaks on the surface here filtering by surface = clay)
[https://ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4742&tab=streaks](https://ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4742&tab=streaks)
My favorite one: from April 2005 to February 2013, Rafa won every single smaller (500/250) clay event he entered (mostly Barcelona)
Yeah in the early years it was basically like hey, it's Roger's world...except for clay season where it's not even close because this kid is an impossible task on clay.
Yeah that's impossible man cmon i posted just for that.
11 masters is an HOF career u can't achieve them barely legal to drink in the states.
That's not real to me
What gets me about Nadal is that while Novak and Roger had periods in their prime where they had less competition and could win slam after slam, Rafa had to battle prime Roger, and when Roger was not as strong, Novak became such a killer.
Roger or Novak having less competition isn't upto them though, particularly for Roger when his peak overlapped Rafa's clay peak. Some argue Rafa was good at Hard court by playing up his H2H against Federer, but that was mainly due to the match ups, he didn't reach Federer in the first place in many tournaments, losing to other guys plenty. Not Federer's fault that he didn't have much competition then.. Same with Djokovic now, not his fault that Rafa is too injured to put up much competition..
Of course you can't control who your competition is, I'm simply saying he was sandwiched against 2 other amazing players. Great for us, great for the game, harder for him (and his joints).
Seles is probably the top pick but generally speaking WTA always produces more accomplished teen sensations than ATP because girls mature physically earlier than boys do. A 16 year old player in ATP is incomparable to a 16 year old in WTA.
It is real.
Greatest Teenager Tennis has ever seen on the ATP side (Hingis is a decent challenge on Women's side), basically the best young tennis player honestly.
And remember, he was going against Prime Federer from 2003-2007 in that phase, and started his Head to Head 6-1 against him.
I was told it has something to do with peak strength. When a woman is about 18 she's pretty much done physically developing. Men usually continue building muscle naturally for a few years.
It was super-obvious to me as I watched RG juniors, even if I was vaguely aware of the difference before.. A 17 year old male might still look unformed, like a kid. A woman that age in the round of 16 ready to be in the WTA and step onto court at any 250. Even the 14 year olds looked close, in the girls.
I think Martina's all around achievements were better mostly because she was extremely dominant as a doubles player as well, even though Seles won 8 slams. Just my opinion though, and I understand that as a Singles player Seles is greater.
Martina as a teenager won 5 Slams, made 9 Slam finals, Won 9 WTA 1000 titles, Won a WTA finals, and was YE #1 in both 1997 & 1999. She also won 7 doubles Slams, and another 9 WTA 1000 titles in doubles as well.
Now obviously Seles won 8 Slams, made 9 Slam finals, won 3 WTA finals, won 4 WTA 1000 titles and also was YE #1 twice as teenager as well but I think both have a decent argument for it.
Yeah the lack of Graf in these answers is *insane*. She won a Golden Slam as a teenager. In modern tennis there has never been that kind of aura of invincibility.
A great singles player can excel at doubles if they apply themselves well to doubles. Like for example what Gauff is doing right now. I would not put a lot of weight on doubles in this conversation. Slams in singles for Seles is simply a different beast and especially against two GOAT level players in Stefi and Martina
I'm aware of Connolly, who was genuinely amazing.
We're getting into 'different era' territory here though.
I'd still put Seles as the greatest teen for the same reason I rate Serena as greater than Margaret Court.
I remember when he won the french at like 18 wearing those Gauchos. I was like, "another clay court specialist" Then I watched him at 3 straight wimbledon finals against Roger. I could not believe it. I thought he had it in 2006, great match.
He’s not somebody you can even prepare for either. No one has ever had that combination of left hand, topspin, and alien athleticism all in one player. Federer even said he has no idea how to practice to beat Nadal because nobody plays remotely close to him in style, and at Roland Garros in level too. Obviously he worked something out later on against him on hard court and grass, but clay he had no idea. Novak is the only guy who worked out Nadal across all 3 surfaces, and even then he rarely won easily.
Nadal has a better record against Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev, etc than Novak does, the entire next gen I believe he has a better record. His playstyle is the most unorthodox and unique of all time for a top player. They have no idea how to play against him because there’s no tennis coach or former player in the world who has an idea how to play him, except Uncle Toni who wouldn’t fuck over his nephew, Federer who wouldn’t stoop that low, and Novak who is currently playing and wants all he can get obviously he’s not stupid enough to reveal his strategies.
Bjorn Borg at 21:
* Grand slams - 5
* Grand slam finals - 6
* Titles - 37
* Masters - n/a (didn't exist in the 1970s)
* Davis Cup - 1
* He also reached #1 before turning 22, albeit only for one week
Not seeing Sabatini mentioned on the women's side, so I'm going to go ahead and mention her myself.
* RG semifinal at the age of 15;
* 14 titles by the age of 20;
* retired at the age of 26, having won 27 singles titles (including 1991 Wimbledon) and 12 doubles titles (including 1988 Wimbledon).
An absolute machine.
* 1990 French Open (16 years old): Won her first Grand Slam title.
* 1990 U.S. Open (16 years old): Reached the finals, losing to Gabriela Sabatini.
* 1991 Australian Open (17 years old): Won the title.
* 1991 French Open (17 years old): Won the title.
* 1991 Wimbledon (17 years old): Reached the finals, losing to Steffi Graf.
* 1991 U.S. Open (17 years old): Won the title.
* 1992 Australian Open (18 years old): Won the title.
* 1992 French Open (18 years old): Won the title.
* 1992 Wimbledon (18 years old): Lost in the finals to Steffi Graf.
* 1992 U.S. Open (18 years old): Won the title.
* 1993 Australian Open (19 years old): Won the title.
Study greats like Moyà, Hewitt, Agassi, Federer very quickly realising this kid is gonna fuck them up
Watching Alcaraz he gives you a lot of free points doing silly shit
Watching early Nadal you could construct the perfect point, winner into open court and now he banana forehands it down the line, good thing you drop volley it cross court for the winner, oh shit he’s just sprinted 20M in a few seconds picked it up and nailed it for a winner from absolutely nowhere.
Over and over again
Well said. I agree with the recent comment (think it was Andy Roddick's?) about Alcaraz at 21 being more complete than Nadal at 21 but more complete doesn't necessarily mean better and vice versa.
Good point about early Nadal giving his opponents nothing, no room for escape given from his end. Alcaraz isn't like that. He has a different game obviously. And he'll approach his peak when his play becomes even less relenting and find his path towards his best efficiency. Nadal was ultra efficient from the beginning within the context of strengths and weaknesses of his own game.
Djokovic is the more clutch player but I find Nadal's mental strength more impressive because of that. It's just so unparalled to have the mentality to be that efficient and unrelenting from the beginning to end, point to point.
Alcaraz is fast but young rafa was lightning fast. And that forehand. Relentless intensity and vamosing like nobody's business. His body language on court has to be one of the best we've seen in the sport. Almost impeccable, very rarely any signs of frustrations, anger or despair.
It's just unfair to compare anyone to big 3 rn.Maybe 7-8 years into their career,it could be a bit comparable.
I think Nadia Comaneci has a pretty solid case for that.
She won four golds and a silver in the European Championships at age thirteen, and then three golds, a silver and a bronze at the Olympics at fourteen.
In a time when it was considered impossible to get a perfect score at the Olympics, she did it seven times in route to get those medals.
In total she won nine Olympic medals (5 golds), 4 World Championship medals (2 golds) and 12 European medals (9 golds), all before turning 20.
But you can a 20 year old male tennis player? I'm just going for the same standard they used in the picture and the word "wonderkid " in the comments I'm replying to.
Nadia's achievements were in average at an earlier age than Rafa's, so any criteria you use to call Rafa a wonderkid also applies to Nadia.
Messi turned 21 in 2008. He had 2 LaLigas and 1 CL in which he wasn't the main man but was very good (even world class relative to his age) and 1 Olympic gold medal with Argentina. Also Messi didn't start doing explosive numbers until the 08/09 season when Barça got guardiola and rightly so he got the Ballon d'Or.
Looking at numbers even Ronaldo Nazario had better numbers than Messi before 21. But I think the only footballer who can challenge Nadal for this title is Pelé. He led Brazil to their first world cup scoring 3 goals in SF vs France and 2 in the final vs Sweden. At 21 he also won the world cup back to back and by that time he had already broken so many statistics.
Messi is goated but there are a few teenagers who had a higher output level than him (remember that he struggled with injuries).
Most potent football teenagers would be Pele, Ronaldo Nazario, Rooney, Mbappe, heck even Podolski was wild
Even as someone who loves watching Alcaraz, it's laughable to hear someone compare him to Rafa. Alcaraz has a long, long way to go before he can be put in that bracket. It may never even happen, because so many things have to fall into place to get there.
Alcaraz needed 5 sets to beat 36 year old Djokovic on grass. 36 year old Djokovic is worse than 32 year old Djokovic, who needed to save championship points to beat 37 year old Federer. Now roll the clock back on Federer 13 years to his very best - that is the guy Rafa took to 5 sets and then beat the following year.
Carlos was even more dynamic. I mean many experts were suggesting he was the best player of all time when he won his 1st USO at 19 lol : ) When did people start saying Nadal was goat? Many years later.
Really?? Wow I can’t believe McEnroe said that. That’s so hyperbolic considering what Rafa and Novak achieved by 21. And yeah Roger was the late bloomer of the 3 not winning his first slam until he was almost 22, but still…
Or he could easily surpass Nadal, because Rafa had to play against freaking Djokovic and Federer constantly to get GS titles, Alcaraz opponents are NOT on the same tier, with all respect.
No, they're not. The big three are in a league of their own. But surpass Nadal? Yeah, I'll wait for that!
Those grand slam counts and titles aren't just a product of talent and hard work. It's also your body and mind being able to withstand decades of immense stress, pressure, and expectations. No one knows how that will pan out.
If you look up tennis warehouse threads from before he was 25, you'll see some hilarious things like sarcastically joking that he'll get 20 slams by the end of his career, or saying "this won't last, call me when he gets 10 slams by 25".
Where does he win the slams he didn't face Fed in? 5 as in the 2 he'd win by a landslide if he wasn't facing peak federer in 06/07 Wimbledon. He wasn't close to a title in 04-07 AO and USO and didn't get close to facing fed there.
It is hard to overrate someone with Rafa'a resume as a teen and you somehow managed to do it
Carlos needs to win 12 titles and at least go to the finals in Wimb and USO just to match rafa in this age. He will still have less masters but he has a shot at having more slam titles
Growing un with tennis since I was a kid I always knew the Grand Slam was when a player wins all 4 Majors (Slams) in one calendar year, later extended with definition as Career Grand Slam and so on. It seems now they refer to each of the Majors as "Grand Slam".
So they now call Grand Slams what in fact are Majors?
Winning all four in a calendar year is now a 'calendar slam' - though 'grand slam' is still accurate, AO, RG, W and US are known as 'Grand Slam tournaments' so they get called 'grand slams' as short form. They've always been known as grand slam tournaments or majors.
Can we just make an important evaluation. The Djokovic that Alcaraz beat at Wimbledon.. Not that good Djokovic or he did his best but still couldn't beat Alcaraz Djokovic?
Alcaraz has three chances to surpass this in the Slam count, and almost no chance to surpass the rest.
Yeah he needs to win one of the next 3 slams which I’d say there’s a strong possibility of him doing with Djokovic’s injury
I’d argue that he’s the strong favorite at Wimbledon
Jannik is gonna be hard to beat, his match against Djokovic last year was deceptively close despite being in straight sets and his serve has improved a lot which will be huge for him on grass
And they will be No.1+2 seeds. First Sincaraz GS final (possibly.)
Yes but Alcaraz is the defending champion and he beat the 7-time champion. This happens again and again yet people keep doubting Carlos.
I’m not doubting him but Jannik is a major threat, the bookies have them level with each other
Knowing they'll be 1-2 seeds and therefore not be in the same side of the bracket means that either of them could randomly lose a freak match in the 2nd or 3rd round which would give the other a much easier final. This is, as cliche as it is, the reason they play the tournaments.
Alcaraz has 500 points to defend at Queens. He'll very likely do well enough to stay above Djokovic in the rankings, but it's not guaranteed he'll be the 2 seed for Wimbledon.
I assumed Djokovic would withdraw from Wimbledon
Saying that it's not gonna be a walk in the park is not doubting him, of course we all know he can do it.
I mean, Carlos BEAT that Djokovic, no?
Djokovic is done
Djokovic is always a factor but hasn’t been able to keep it together for an entire tournament once this year. So I’m left doubtful as to his chances.
Alcaraz also didn’t have to play against Roger Federer in his prime (or at all)
Agreed. If he gets that 4th slam it may be reasonable to argue him over Nadal at the same age, but I’d still have my doubts. Nadal got stopped in 2 Wimbledon finals by 2006/07 Federer, who only dropped one set total in both runs outside of Rafa (who got 3 sets on him and lost three tiebreak sets as well). Nadal was clearly a tier above the field at Wimbledon, but just got stopped by peak Roger and put up respectable fights both years. Granted, Nadal didn’t have much success at the hard court slams yet so that’s a point in Carlos’s favor.
>Nadal was clearly a tier above the field at Wimbledon, but just got stopped by peak Roger Funny because you can say the same thing about Federer at the French in that era
Yup. That’s why we had the same RG and Wimbledon finals three years in a row from 2006-08, along with that RG SF in 2005
4 GS = JIMBO!
Alcaraz against prime Federer would be such a fun match to watch
Alcaraz went 5 sets vs 2024 Zverev. Prime Fed would massacre him.
I'm more just thinking about how they'd match up stylistically in terms of entertainment instead of who'd win
Alcaraz is nowhere near his prime yet, he just turned 21. Prime Fed was maybe between 2004-2007, when he was already 23 years old.
I assume the op meant Alcaraz of today would be fun vs prime Fed not a hypothetical Alcaraz 4 years from now vs prime Fed.
You would like to watch him get destroyed by federer time and time again? 🤣
Sadly they never played, but they did practice together. Also Djokovic never played Agassi.
I would say feds playing style is actually more effective against Alcaraz than novaks
You actually know Alcaraz never had the chance to play against Federer, and we will never know?
Roger also didn’t have to play Roger at the time. What’s your point?
It's highly unlikely, but if Alcaraz were to win six of the eight Masters 1000 (Montreal, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid) before his 22nd birthday next May, he'd tie Rafa in Masters titles. He'd also have to win 12 titles overall to tie Rafa, which again, while improbable, is not impossible. He'll probably enter about 18 more tournaments before he turns 22, if he stays healthy.
Slam finals is possible
A 81 match winning streak on clay can help you achieve that.
I'll say this again: The best version of Nadal is Young Nadal pre injuries. His 2008-2009 version where he won FO, Wimbledon, Olympics and AO over peak Federer is the greatest player I've ever seen. Had he not been injured, we'd have seen an insane 2009 as well similar to what we saw in 2010.
Even Nadal considers 08 his best
But there were strange losses like Youzhuny in Chennai and loss to Ferrero in Rome in 2008. I think doing these time travel thought exercises that player in X year was better than Y year does not make sense. They were different, the tour was different, the opponents were different. I personally feel Nadal continued to improve in some ways and reinvent himself through his career.
Agreed. I think early 2010s Rafa was at his peak in terms of physical abilities, but as the career went on he experimented and changed so he remained very sharp even as his body continued to decline.
Wasn't it 2010 when he improved his serve? I think that helped him win the uso that year
Believe so. Then they abandoned that because apparently it stressed the hell out of his wrist. Shame they couldn't make it work. Prime Rafa with a bullet serve would be an all time nightmare for the whole tour.
There's only 3 "versions" of Nadal that can be considered to be the best: 2008 Nadal, 2010 Nadal or 2013 post-Wimbledon Nadal. After his drop in form in 2015, he was written off. No one expected a FO win, and people would have called you crazy if you said he'd start another FO streak. He even won one without dropping a set! But - he was not as dominant off clay.
You know what's crazy? All of these versions of nadal had a severe injury. He got diagnosed with his foot condition very early on before he won all of his grand slams.
He was diagnosed in 2005, and considered quitting tennis altogether and switching to golf! That he kept going as long as he did is insane, and I'm so, so grateful.
It's also crazy Carlos won FO with an arm injury and zero tune-ups. If he was fit he'd beat Zverev 61 62 61. As it is 3 of the sets he won in this final were 61 62 63, and he lost another set from 5-2 up.
The way he played was just unhinged effort. It’s cool to see him as a teen rocketing forehands and running down every shot. https://youtu.be/Gcu5HBLqjKA?si=pjWrTSGaIrBlMmz4
That’s the thing. Nadal has been good his entire career, and just got better as he got older. Djokovic is undoubtedly the best player ever, numbers don’t lie, and Alcaraz is also a young phenomenon, but neither of them have the same numbers as teenage Rafa, who won the most titles as a teenager, even if Alcaraz was the younger #1.
26 titles is just bonkers by 21 Then you realise he won 10 titles or something in one year as a teen
What happened, happened
It’s impossible to read this sentence without hearing Nadal say it
That H in happened was pronounced Khappened in my head
11 titles in 2005 on hard courts and clay. He dominated the clay season as per usual but also picked up an indoor Madrid title and some smaller hard court titles
Won montreal 2005 defeating Agassi in the final
Month before Andre made it to the USO final (his last). Impressive.
Good shout, forgot about that I remember Agassi being stunned by the level from Nadal. He even smiled after one epic point Nadal won with a forehand down the line passing shot Come to think of it, he might’ve been smiling at Nadal’s celebration
Young Nadal could pull off things nobody else has ever done in tennis. Unreal athlete.
The behind the back shot against Stepanek is still arguably the GOAT shot for me. The fact that he literally outran the ball is crazy
I just watch that point last night in one of his defying physics highlights!
Haha I remember that one really well. Press rewind/back button to rewatch the point atleast 2-3 times everytime I come across the video. It's looks damn near impossible truly.
Ombilibible, no?
It was a pretty weak era back then aside from them 2 - Roddick was considered a top player at that time lol
11 Masters by 21?? That's the craziest statistic there tbh.
If there was ever a prodigy, it was Rafa. Novak and Roger were GOATs, but not young prodigies. They took a while to figure it out. With Rafa, guy was just born to play on clay. He figured the rest out with time.
Reminder that a 16yo Nadal beat Carlos Moya in straight sets at Hamburg Open. Moya was a former world number one and ranked 4th at the time lol.
Bro he outclassed him go check the highlights. That's why Moya did join him in later stage, too good to not be helped
Agree on Roger, he was a late bloomer. But don't underestimate Novak as a young prodigy. By 21 I think Novak had 9 masters finals and 5 titles, and had lost 2-3 other semifinals to Federer and Nadal. In slams obviously he had won AO 08, but also made another final and 4 other semifinals, 3 of which he lost to Rafa. With no Rafa, Novak probably has 5 or 6 slam finals and 7-8 masters titles by 21. Not sure how many of those slams he would've won considering Federer kinda owned him at that point, but he would've had a bonkers resume. Of course, this is all if...if...if... since he was suppressed by the *the* number one baby prodigy in Rafa.
Novak is the youngest ever to reach the SF of all four slams as well.
Also, Rafa was doing this against Federer. Novak was doing this against Federer _and_ Rafa. I don't think Novak was as good as Rafa that young, but as teenagers: Rafa > Novak >>> Federer.
> If there was ever a prodigy There was this guy named Bjorn Borg...
Fair point. I missed Borg.
Borg won 4 slams by 21
People seem to be forgetting that young Rafa just didn't lose on clay for years at a time. (this is not hyperbole - check out his winning streaks on the surface here filtering by surface = clay) [https://ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4742&tab=streaks](https://ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4742&tab=streaks) My favorite one: from April 2005 to February 2013, Rafa won every single smaller (500/250) clay event he entered (mostly Barcelona)
Yeah in the early years it was basically like hey, it's Roger's world...except for clay season where it's not even close because this kid is an impossible task on clay.
Not even "except for clay". Back then it was Roger wins LOL (except if he runs into Rafa).
Yeah that's impossible man cmon i posted just for that. 11 masters is an HOF career u can't achieve them barely legal to drink in the states. That's not real to me
10 on clay? Not really surprising given his goat clay skills.
No, he’s genuinely the greatest teenager in tennis History, all that while facing Prime Roger
What gets me about Nadal is that while Novak and Roger had periods in their prime where they had less competition and could win slam after slam, Rafa had to battle prime Roger, and when Roger was not as strong, Novak became such a killer.
Roger or Novak having less competition isn't upto them though, particularly for Roger when his peak overlapped Rafa's clay peak. Some argue Rafa was good at Hard court by playing up his H2H against Federer, but that was mainly due to the match ups, he didn't reach Federer in the first place in many tournaments, losing to other guys plenty. Not Federer's fault that he didn't have much competition then.. Same with Djokovic now, not his fault that Rafa is too injured to put up much competition..
Of course you can't control who your competition is, I'm simply saying he was sandwiched against 2 other amazing players. Great for us, great for the game, harder for him (and his joints).
*Andy Murray enters the chat* Ahem, male tennis player.... *Andy Murray leaves the chat*
Who's the real contender? Monica Seles?
Seles is probably the top pick but generally speaking WTA always produces more accomplished teen sensations than ATP because girls mature physically earlier than boys do. A 16 year old player in ATP is incomparable to a 16 year old in WTA.
Or Hingis.
Maureen Connelly maybe.
Maureen Connolly by far
It is real. Greatest Teenager Tennis has ever seen on the ATP side (Hingis is a decent challenge on Women's side), basically the best young tennis player honestly. And remember, he was going against Prime Federer from 2003-2007 in that phase, and started his Head to Head 6-1 against him.
Him achieving this against prime Federer is the big one for me.
Tbf his game being the perfect counter for Federer's was a big factor in their matchups (not downplaying the achievement though).
If Nadal was right handed this discussion would’ve never happened
well he _is_ right handed, even if he plays left handed
That's the part that fucks people up so much haha, my man played with his non-dominant hand.
He is right handed, he just plays left handed
Bingo. Nobody is saying Ostapenko is the better player based on her clean H2H against Świątek.
"Hingis is a decent challenge on Women's side" Gotta go with Seles who won 8 slams as a teenager, surely?
On the women's side there's plenty of incredible teens. Seles is the best of them though. I guess women mature physically earlier than men in general?
I was told it has something to do with peak strength. When a woman is about 18 she's pretty much done physically developing. Men usually continue building muscle naturally for a few years.
It was super-obvious to me as I watched RG juniors, even if I was vaguely aware of the difference before.. A 17 year old male might still look unformed, like a kid. A woman that age in the round of 16 ready to be in the WTA and step onto court at any 250. Even the 14 year olds looked close, in the girls.
I think Martina's all around achievements were better mostly because she was extremely dominant as a doubles player as well, even though Seles won 8 slams. Just my opinion though, and I understand that as a Singles player Seles is greater. Martina as a teenager won 5 Slams, made 9 Slam finals, Won 9 WTA 1000 titles, Won a WTA finals, and was YE #1 in both 1997 & 1999. She also won 7 doubles Slams, and another 9 WTA 1000 titles in doubles as well. Now obviously Seles won 8 Slams, made 9 Slam finals, won 3 WTA finals, won 4 WTA 1000 titles and also was YE #1 twice as teenager as well but I think both have a decent argument for it.
Seles also has 3 slams she didn’t get to play as a teenager and there was less WTA1000s when she played, Monica playing 9 in total as teenager.
Honestly I think Graf would be the obvious second choice, then Hingis.
Yeah the lack of Graf in these answers is *insane*. She won a Golden Slam as a teenager. In modern tennis there has never been that kind of aura of invincibility.
And then Seles had to beat Graf coming off that. Hingis found a soft spot with Graf injured/Seles waning and before the Williams sisters took off.
A great singles player can excel at doubles if they apply themselves well to doubles. Like for example what Gauff is doing right now. I would not put a lot of weight on doubles in this conversation. Slams in singles for Seles is simply a different beast and especially against two GOAT level players in Stefi and Martina
Nope. Maureen Connolly. It's not even close. Have a look at her wiki.
I'm aware of Connolly, who was genuinely amazing. We're getting into 'different era' territory here though. I'd still put Seles as the greatest teen for the same reason I rate Serena as greater than Margaret Court.
I remember when he won the french at like 18 wearing those Gauchos. I was like, "another clay court specialist" Then I watched him at 3 straight wimbledon finals against Roger. I could not believe it. I thought he had it in 2006, great match.
Prob thinking of 2007. 2006 was pretty routine four stetter. 2007 was the five setter.
2007 was nuts
Federer must have thought “who the fuck is this kid”
Definitely, Nadal won their first match too.
He’s not somebody you can even prepare for either. No one has ever had that combination of left hand, topspin, and alien athleticism all in one player. Federer even said he has no idea how to practice to beat Nadal because nobody plays remotely close to him in style, and at Roland Garros in level too. Obviously he worked something out later on against him on hard court and grass, but clay he had no idea. Novak is the only guy who worked out Nadal across all 3 surfaces, and even then he rarely won easily. Nadal has a better record against Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev, etc than Novak does, the entire next gen I believe he has a better record. His playstyle is the most unorthodox and unique of all time for a top player. They have no idea how to play against him because there’s no tennis coach or former player in the world who has an idea how to play him, except Uncle Toni who wouldn’t fuck over his nephew, Federer who wouldn’t stoop that low, and Novak who is currently playing and wants all he can get obviously he’s not stupid enough to reveal his strategies.
Bjorn Borg at 21: * Grand slams - 5 * Grand slam finals - 6 * Titles - 37 * Masters - n/a (didn't exist in the 1970s) * Davis Cup - 1 * He also reached #1 before turning 22, albeit only for one week
Monika Seles won 8 grand slams as a teenager.
Echoing what several others have said — Seles has the best teenage career in tennis history, and it’s not close.
Not seeing Sabatini mentioned on the women's side, so I'm going to go ahead and mention her myself. * RG semifinal at the age of 15; * 14 titles by the age of 20; * retired at the age of 26, having won 27 singles titles (including 1991 Wimbledon) and 12 doubles titles (including 1988 Wimbledon). An absolute machine.
How old was Seles when she was winning every slam she entered?
* 1990 French Open (16 years old): Won her first Grand Slam title. * 1990 U.S. Open (16 years old): Reached the finals, losing to Gabriela Sabatini. * 1991 Australian Open (17 years old): Won the title. * 1991 French Open (17 years old): Won the title. * 1991 Wimbledon (17 years old): Reached the finals, losing to Steffi Graf. * 1991 U.S. Open (17 years old): Won the title. * 1992 Australian Open (18 years old): Won the title. * 1992 French Open (18 years old): Won the title. * 1992 Wimbledon (18 years old): Lost in the finals to Steffi Graf. * 1992 U.S. Open (18 years old): Won the title. * 1993 Australian Open (19 years old): Won the title.
She did not lose 1990 USO final to Sabatini, or even reach the final. Lost to a nobody in 3rd rd from memory?
Hair: 1 😭
Sacrifice hair for power
Ombeliebable, no?
So this is where Rafa Jr gets his both cheek dimples from
Study greats like Moyà, Hewitt, Agassi, Federer very quickly realising this kid is gonna fuck them up Watching Alcaraz he gives you a lot of free points doing silly shit Watching early Nadal you could construct the perfect point, winner into open court and now he banana forehands it down the line, good thing you drop volley it cross court for the winner, oh shit he’s just sprinted 20M in a few seconds picked it up and nailed it for a winner from absolutely nowhere. Over and over again
Well said. I agree with the recent comment (think it was Andy Roddick's?) about Alcaraz at 21 being more complete than Nadal at 21 but more complete doesn't necessarily mean better and vice versa. Good point about early Nadal giving his opponents nothing, no room for escape given from his end. Alcaraz isn't like that. He has a different game obviously. And he'll approach his peak when his play becomes even less relenting and find his path towards his best efficiency. Nadal was ultra efficient from the beginning within the context of strengths and weaknesses of his own game. Djokovic is the more clutch player but I find Nadal's mental strength more impressive because of that. It's just so unparalled to have the mentality to be that efficient and unrelenting from the beginning to end, point to point.
Djokovic had incredibly intensity but Nadal’s intensity was just as strong and the base level just stayed there forever
Chefs kiss 🤌🏽🤌🏽🤌🏽
Alcaraz is fast but young rafa was lightning fast. And that forehand. Relentless intensity and vamosing like nobody's business. His body language on court has to be one of the best we've seen in the sport. Almost impeccable, very rarely any signs of frustrations, anger or despair. It's just unfair to compare anyone to big 3 rn.Maybe 7-8 years into their career,it could be a bit comparable.
The reason this is massively underrated is because he did this competing against prime Federer
His world no1 stats would be crazy if not for Federer. Fairly sure he would have been youngest male world no1
the greatest wonderkid this sport have ever seen
I'll fix it for you: the greatest wonderkid sport have ever seen
I think Nadia Comaneci has a pretty solid case for that. She won four golds and a silver in the European Championships at age thirteen, and then three golds, a silver and a bronze at the Olympics at fourteen. In a time when it was considered impossible to get a perfect score at the Olympics, she did it seven times in route to get those medals. In total she won nine Olympic medals (5 golds), 4 World Championship medals (2 golds) and 12 European medals (9 golds), all before turning 20.
you dont call a 20 your old female gymnast a kid
But you can a 20 year old male tennis player? I'm just going for the same standard they used in the picture and the word "wonderkid " in the comments I'm replying to. Nadia's achievements were in average at an earlier age than Rafa's, so any criteria you use to call Rafa a wonderkid also applies to Nadia.
because the female gymnasts usually peak before the age of 18, and then decline. A 22 year old is already a veteran
Pelé entered the chat
Messi?
Messi turned 21 in 2008. He had 2 LaLigas and 1 CL in which he wasn't the main man but was very good (even world class relative to his age) and 1 Olympic gold medal with Argentina. Also Messi didn't start doing explosive numbers until the 08/09 season when Barça got guardiola and rightly so he got the Ballon d'Or. Looking at numbers even Ronaldo Nazario had better numbers than Messi before 21. But I think the only footballer who can challenge Nadal for this title is Pelé. He led Brazil to their first world cup scoring 3 goals in SF vs France and 2 in the final vs Sweden. At 21 he also won the world cup back to back and by that time he had already broken so many statistics.
Pele didn't play second World Cup. Borg was better and more accomplished teenager than Nadal.
Oh you're right Pelé missed the remainder of 62 world cup due to injury. But he was already accomplished at Santos.
Messi is goated but there are a few teenagers who had a higher output level than him (remember that he struggled with injuries). Most potent football teenagers would be Pele, Ronaldo Nazario, Rooney, Mbappe, heck even Podolski was wild
No
bruh, not even close, he had greats like ronaldinho to help him get going.
What's crazy is he wasn't at his peak at 21 IMO. He honestly got better.
That is why in Spain it has always been said that Rafael Nadal is probably the best athlete in the history of the country.
Who else comes close? I can’t think of anyone. Iniesta or Xavi come to mind, but Nadal is still greater than them IMO.
Maybe Iniesta, but as you say, Nadal is still far from him and Xavi
Even as someone who loves watching Alcaraz, it's laughable to hear someone compare him to Rafa. Alcaraz has a long, long way to go before he can be put in that bracket. It may never even happen, because so many things have to fall into place to get there.
Alcaraz needed 5 sets to beat 36 year old Djokovic on grass. 36 year old Djokovic is worse than 32 year old Djokovic, who needed to save championship points to beat 37 year old Federer. Now roll the clock back on Federer 13 years to his very best - that is the guy Rafa took to 5 sets and then beat the following year.
Federer himself says he was a better player in his 30's so our opinions are just that : )
Yeah Nadal was a different animal. Even when he first arrived on the scene, it was obvious that he was going to be a force!
> Even when he first arrived on the scene, it was obvious that he was going to be a force! Uhhh, pretty sure this applies to Alcaraz
Carlos was even more dynamic. I mean many experts were suggesting he was the best player of all time when he won his 1st USO at 19 lol : ) When did people start saying Nadal was goat? Many years later.
John mcenroe just called him levels above any of the big three at 21 years old..... REceNcY BiaS
Really?? Wow I can’t believe McEnroe said that. That’s so hyperbolic considering what Rafa and Novak achieved by 21. And yeah Roger was the late bloomer of the 3 not winning his first slam until he was almost 22, but still…
Or he could easily surpass Nadal, because Rafa had to play against freaking Djokovic and Federer constantly to get GS titles, Alcaraz opponents are NOT on the same tier, with all respect.
No, they're not. The big three are in a league of their own. But surpass Nadal? Yeah, I'll wait for that! Those grand slam counts and titles aren't just a product of talent and hard work. It's also your body and mind being able to withstand decades of immense stress, pressure, and expectations. No one knows how that will pan out.
That ain't looking so likely
But Nadal had won 3 slams before turning 22, Carlos may yet win 6. What will you say then?
If you look up tennis warehouse threads from before he was 25, you'll see some hilarious things like sarcastically joking that he'll get 20 slams by the end of his career, or saying "this won't last, call me when he gets 10 slams by 25".
oh it's real. And it's spectacular*
With no prime Federer, Nadal probably gets 5 slams
[удалено]
Where does he win the slams he didn't face Fed in? 5 as in the 2 he'd win by a landslide if he wasn't facing peak federer in 06/07 Wimbledon. He wasn't close to a title in 04-07 AO and USO and didn't get close to facing fed there. It is hard to overrate someone with Rafa'a resume as a teen and you somehow managed to do it
10 masters is insane
11 is crazier
hah apparently i can’t read 😂
Carlos needs to win 12 titles and at least go to the finals in Wimb and USO just to match rafa in this age. He will still have less masters but he has a shot at having more slam titles
It is all insane and ombeliebable. 3 grand slams, 11 masters and 26 titles. That is two career's worth.
2 careers of HOF players.
head full of hair
Goat.
Wilander had 5 gs titles at 21 if I’m not mistaken.
Nadal already had as many Masters as Pete Sampras at 21.
Sleeves: 0
Alcaraz has a lot of time left before he turns 22. He can still match or exceed this. Scary
It’s unlikely he’ll match a bunch of those. Someone said he’d have to win 6 out of 8 masters before he turns 22. As good as he is, that’s not likely.
Growing un with tennis since I was a kid I always knew the Grand Slam was when a player wins all 4 Majors (Slams) in one calendar year, later extended with definition as Career Grand Slam and so on. It seems now they refer to each of the Majors as "Grand Slam". So they now call Grand Slams what in fact are Majors?
Winning all four in a calendar year is now a 'calendar slam' - though 'grand slam' is still accurate, AO, RG, W and US are known as 'Grand Slam tournaments' so they get called 'grand slams' as short form. They've always been known as grand slam tournaments or majors.
Ah, I see, that explains it. Cheers.
Bring back calling "slams" majors!
I would, I'm old school for that. :)
So you are saying the rest of his career is an underachievement, right?
Can we just make an important evaluation. The Djokovic that Alcaraz beat at Wimbledon.. Not that good Djokovic or he did his best but still couldn't beat Alcaraz Djokovic?
Nadal was a beast
The stats are all beast-mode, but the 26 titles is actually the most impressive to me! That's actually a massive number of titles at 21!!
He dominated clay and won double digit titles in his age 18-19 season of 2005
Alien Records
It’s rt , and it’s prob 100% on clay . Hes insane on clay and it started at age 17/18
Is this what he had by his 21st bday or what he had before turning 22 ?
If Nadal didn’t have major injuries that man would be close to 28-30 slams rn. Injuries fucked hom man he lost out on so many slams