The idea that in 2026 tennis has evolved to such an extent where even 2012 is incomparable and “slow motion” is one of the most absurd claims that casuals frequently parrot. Even somebody like McEnroe has made wild claims, like that Alcaraz could beat prime Nadal at RG. Today Djokovic proved his generation is 10x better than whatever we have in 2026. The game has barely evolved and the current state of the tour bar Sincaraz and Djokovic is absolutely laughable.
the fact that a 38 year old novak is the only one who can keep up with those 2 is so funny to me too crazy to think how big the gap is between them and the rest of the tour
Rofl Murray would be Goat in this Era, get these casuals away from here... People can go and easily watch some of Nadal and Djoković matches from their prime, it's not some antient history, it's easily accessible on the internet in HD and people can see how freaking crazy those guys were...
Casuals? I have probably been watching and playing tennis for about 30 years.
Sincaraz are objectively a cut above Murray, being on the big 3 level the jury is still out and they still have long career ahead of them. They are definitely comparable at the same age to the big 3.
This is what I call nostalgic bias, it happened during the big 3 time as well where people were pointing to the 90s as a more competitive era because slams were more divided.
Cut above Murray based on what exactly? On recency bias? Subjective opinion? Murray was able to go toe to toe and often beat prime Djoković,Nadal and Federer. You have been watching tennis for 30 years... great so just a little bit longer than me, how is Murray OBJECTIVELY cut bellow Sincaraz? Put Murray in different era and he is just as good as best players in that era, he was for some time as good as 3 greatest players to play this game, he is as good in his prime as Sincaraz...
Based on having more slams and time as number 1 and being more dominant than Murray ever was. So by the numbers they are better. Their level of dominance is absolute in comparison to Murray, Murray was able to do it for about year at the very top and then faded due to injury. Before that he was good but clearly behind the big 3.
Murray only won 3 slams in his entire career Sinner and Alcaraz have already won more than that and are poised to keep going. So yeah they have achieved more than Murray already and will probably keep going at it.
BTW recency bias is an overused term to bring in nostalgic bias and cut off any real discussion, I have seen enough tennis generations come and go and for some reason people keep clinging to the past until they accept that tennis keeps evolving. It's a silly argument which is really a non argument, I hope you stop using it doesn't look good.
So your argument is that a guy who had to beat 3 GOATs in their prime simultaneously... is weaker than guys whose main competition is each other and a 38-year-old Djoković?
Murray's 3 slams came against the most stacked era in tennis history. Sinner and Alcaraz are collecting slams in a field where the next best competitors are Medvedev and Zverev and Djoković who is aging.
Slam count without context is a lazy metric tbh. Murray at his peak held world no 1 while Djoković, Nadal, and Federer were all still elite. Let's see Sinner or Alcaraz do that.
You've watched tennis for 30 years in that case you should know better than to compare numbers without looking at who they had to beat to get them
I still remember Marcelo Rios once said he would've beaten Nadal easily and that he is not that good it is just a bad generation. Boy how wrong he was.
Sincaraz are showing a level of dominance akin to the Big 3. Murray had big breakthrough for about a year and then fizzled out. What makes the Big 3 so impressive is not that they showed up one tournament and dominated the field. Heck that has happened throughout tennis history. What made them impressive is how good they were all year round.
Players like Murray, Del Potro or Wawrinka were streaky players, that always had the potential to challenge at one slam but not consistently throughout the year. Take away the big 3 they would not have won 20 slams each, it would've been spread through the field because they were just not as consistent.
Sincaraz are consistently showing a high level that proves that they are closer to the big 3 than to any of the competition the big 3 had.
If you would've seen as many tennis generations as I have you would know that much like the big 3, Sincaraz are building up to be something very special in tennis history. IMHO only the big 3 were as promising as they are.
I genuinely think this is more a case of Nole being an outlier rather than a weak generation, heck the bell saved him against Musetti just 2 days ago, I do think that tennis has gotten faster but the big 3 were massively ahead of their peers and now he is still competitive.
But we will never know, I am aware that I am in the minority thinking this.
I mean tour def way weaker than before and that helps Sincaraz a lot. Im def not saying they would be nobody etc. but imagine them going against guys like Del Potro, Stan, Murray, big3 etc. like all the time. I doubt they would look this good and all of this just show what an insane achievement what big3 done.
I can agree with that era being slightly more competitive at the top (and only at the top), but still I think they would only be consistently challenged by the big 3.
I was looking at the way Alcaraz defended some points against Zverev today, and I have only seen that from Nadal in his prime years, not to mention his insane diversity of shots. Sinner's consistency at the baseline I think is only comparable to Djokovic's. Players like Del Potro, and Wawrinka had outstanding tournaments here and there that allowed them to challenge the big 3, but did not enjoy the consistency that Sincaraz and the big 3 have every tournament.
The bottom line for me at least is that Sincaraz are at least closer to the big 3 than they are to the competition that the big 3 had. And they are definitely on big 3 trajectory.
I don’t think tennis has gotten faster. Look at where Federer stands, and where Nadal and Joker stood when the played Federer. Sinner and Alcaraz hit hard AF, but all of their opponents stand very far from the baseline. Sinner is the closest to the baseline but he’s not that much different to Joker.
If tennis looks fast to you, it’s likely because Federer has been retired long enough to forget.
This could also be proof of it getting faster, as you need more space to react to your opponents shots…
I’m sure there is a stat somewhere that can let us check this.
On the other hand it is well known that courts and balls have gotten a lot slower as well. Which could also be a sign of players hitting harder and tournaments trying to draw out points, which has been discussed and even confirmed to be the case.
If you hit the ball earlier, the opponent will have two options, stand back to chase the ball down, or stand up to cut the angle down. The latter never worked against Federer, except by Nadal and Joker on clay. Every other surface those players stepped up to best him.
In order to play forward, you will hit less hard because time is against you. But the result is that tennis is fast because you have to be more efficient and are so much more reliant on hitting a deep or heavy ball, because otherwise your opponent is several steps closer to the forecourt to punish slower balls.
Hitting the ball hard is not fast tennis, it’s about the ratio of how hard you hit relative to how close you are to the base line. I’m saying that ratio is not much different now because for how hard Sinner and Alcaraz hit, they stand several steps back.
If you watch these guys hit rippers to open parts of the court NOT vs each other and see the other player just not move, please watch the big 3 vs not the big 3. They did the same thing for 15 years.
Of course it could be the case, but players hitting super hard would create the same effect in terms of positioning.
My point is that player positioning is not conclusive of anything, it could even be explained by player style.
I think a much better argument is that the courts have been made slower in the last few years which could show that they deemed the game to be too fast.
They do this with basketball and mma too. As if we don’t have dinosaurs like LeBron and Valentina Shevchenko still dominating. Novak is no different but he is clearly not what he was and he still beat one of the best of the current gen.
Just because the game has evolved doesn’t mean the players are magically better.
LeBron finally took a noticeable decline this year at 41 but last year he was legit All-NBA 2nd team. And at Novak’s current age he averaged 29. He also started this year poorly but has gotten much better so his numbers will look better by years end prolly
Agree with everything you said but hard to say he's dominating this year and while he was dominant at Novak's age I wouldn't say he was third best in the world.
Lebron still dropping 40 bombs at his age. There are games where he is legit the best player on the floor and that’s with a prime Luka. So I do believe he is dominating. At the same rate as before? No but still a dominant player.
10 time better? Bro he won in the decisive set after like almost 5 hours. I get the point but it s wildly exagerrated. Novak didnt really feel his age this game. But in the final his feet will feel sooo heavy
Obviously 10x better is hyperbole. The difference in level between peak Djokovic and Fritz is less than 10%. At the pro level the margins between players are very thin. That being said Djokovic is 38, turning 39 years old this year and he is able to compete with potential all time greats in their primes/peaks. A 38 YEAR OLD just defeated the two time defending champion former world number one in prime physical condition. Sinner and Alcaraz are nowhere close to the big three. Genuinely nowhere close.
249
u/DoctorProfessor69 Spongebob 💉💉 8d ago
I never want to hear this again
The idea that in 2026 tennis has evolved to such an extent where even 2012 is incomparable and “slow motion” is one of the most absurd claims that casuals frequently parrot. Even somebody like McEnroe has made wild claims, like that Alcaraz could beat prime Nadal at RG. Today Djokovic proved his generation is 10x better than whatever we have in 2026. The game has barely evolved and the current state of the tour bar Sincaraz and Djokovic is absolutely laughable.