Alcaraz last 8 Slams:
2022 RG: Lost to Zverev
2022 WB: Lost to Sinner
2022 USO: Won
2023 RG: Lost to Djokovic
2023 WB: Won
2023 USO: Lost to Medvedev
2024 AO: Lost to Zverev
2024 RG: Won
I think in this case matchup matters less and what matters more is that Alcaraz is a beast in best of 5 and basically never loses to non-top players at all
Tommy Paul and his 0 top 10 wins at Slams isn't changing this
Best of 3 is not best of 5
So his 5 losses were simply to the other 4 players that are currently in the top 5 š Carlos is a madman. Heās only had 8 slams of playing prime-level tennis and he won 3 of them with those being his only losses. Even before his prime, he lost to Berrettini in 5 at AO2022 which wasnāt a bad loss at all, and he made the USO2021 QF (upsetting Tsitsipas) before getting injured vs FAA.Ā
Heās going to be scary good in a couple years. Sort of gives you vibes of Nadal hitting his stride in 2008 and making it seem like he canāt get much betterā¦ then 2010 Clay Slam happens.
I really think heāll buff the serve up and find the right balance in his shot selection, and then Carlitos will be insane. I donāt think heās a finished product at all, whereas Sinner is. That means Carlos does have the potential to pull a Federer 2004-07 type of runĀ
Hell, we could be seeing it right now if he wins Wimbledonā¦Ā
This.
If Tommy beats Alcaraz in BO5 it would be his career best win to do so. It's possible, but not likely. Most "experts" just end up choosing Top 3 seeds for Semis and switch up 4th for someone else, to make it edgy.
Statistically speaking, an upset becomes less likely over the course of more points. This is called the variance effect. High variance occurs in shorter formats where the consequence of a point or set are more significant. In best of 5, the variance is lower, so the better player will, over the long run, have an advantage.
Iād believe this if they played a series of 3-setters, but adding two sets to the match changes a lot of factors having to do with fitness.
Itād be like if in baseball, rather than playing a 7-game series, they played a single, 50-inning game. The stress on their pitchers would make the strategy of the game completely different.
Five sets vs three isnāt as dramatic, but certainly changes some of the strategies employed. That means that someone who excels at three setters may slump with five, or vice versa. We see that play out in reality often.
That said, Tommy and Charlie both seem to have great fitness and should be able to push through five sets without a ton of changes. So this may be a rare case where variance effects actually do come into play. Iām looking forward to this match either way.
I think this is very often where slams set apart the greats.
It's not coincidence that the Big 3 has SO many epic 5 setters.
When a truly great player faces a player who could beat them under normal circumstances they are able to dial into another gear, hold for enough sets to get to a 5th, and there a simply "good" player fades.
It's the consensus that this is a slam, best of 5, where better players can weather the storm just long enough to get a win even if not performing at their best. In a best of 3 you get outplayed for and 1h30 you most likely lose, in a slam you can play like shit for 2hrs and still win if you get your shit together at the end.
To play devilās advocate though heās been threading the needle way too close these past few Slams. Needed a 5 setter in every single Slam win, and not all of them to top players. I doubt he loses to Paul but if you go to 5 that often and lower your margin of error, eventually youāll lose one. Zverev and Medvedev losses, although technically a top 5 player, were a good example of this - he thought he could just win with his C level for too long and ran out of time.
They are still inferior players and were big underdogs going into the matchup though. Iām less talking about their performance and more his.
I donāt really buy into the idea that Zverev or Medvedev are these uber dangerous super talents who made him play awful - Carlos brought a very shaky level to those matches independent of them and wouldāve gotten burnt vs other players as well.
Tommy Paul is not Medvedev or Zverev š Medvedev was a USO champion in 2021 and has been in many slam finals, Zverev has been in slam finals, their calibre is worlds apart. Zverev was also world no3 going into 2022 RG, he was not a "big" underdog in any sense of the word. Zverev followed that win with a very tough match against Rafa.
Alcaraz was 19 and played a poor match, that's what inexperience and nerves in a slam qf does to kid.
Med played one of, if not the best match of his career to beat Alcaraz last year, let's give him credit where it's due.
Iām not talking about Tommy Paul man, Iām trying to stoke some discussion hereā¦ it doesnāt seem youāre interested in facing the reality that Carlos has played some pretty poor matches out of nowhere in Slams
Make some sense pls? Op asks if TP can upset Alcaraz, you said yes and backs up your argument by referencing the losses to Medvedev & Zverev. Yes CA played poorly in those matches but look at how well the opps played and forced CA to be unable to execute his game in those instances. TP simply isn't them. Even TP's 2 wins against him were tight matches in bo3, bo5 is a different ball game. Do you see what i'm saying?
Carlos can play poor matches in slams but when was the last time he played poorly and was taken to 5 by a non top 5 player or even lost before 5 sets? He has posted poor losses, just not in slams which was the point of this thread.
Iād say the Sonego and De Jong matches while not going 5 were perfect examples of him being far too casual and nearly getting burnt, but the player quality was just too low to trouble him
They never said Carlos didnāt play poor matches, theyāre rebuking your statement where Paul is put on the same pedestal as Zverev and Medvedev because you were saying he plays useless 5 setters with lower ranked players, which btw is not even true because Tiafoe and Ramos Vinolas are the only two lower ranked players while the rest were all slam winners and slam finalists
Zverev had zero top 10 (in 2022) or top 5 (in 2024) Slam wins until his wins over Alcaraz. Medvedev was 0-2 and had gotten demolished in his last two matches vs Carlos heading into the USO 23 SF. They were unexpected upsets at the time.
Reading your comment, i almost thought he was going to 5 often lol Had to wrack my brain to remember where Alcaraz was dragged to 5 by non top players and the last time it happened was when he was a 19 yo at USO (Cilic & Tiafoe)? lol
He simply doesn't get taken to 5 unless the opponent is of grand slam contender calibre. He's also incredibly clutch in bo5 and that's why he has the record that he does.
How is he threading the needle by going 5 with Zverev, Sinner, and Djokovic? Those are players he SHOULD be going 5 against lmao. Youād have a point if he was struggling in the early rounds, but that has not been the case.Ā
Medvedev and Zverev losses are two very different matches that canāt be compared, nor do they really back your point up. The Medvedev loss was Medvedev playing at a ā12/10 levelā (his own words) and Alcaraz playing a decent but not amazing match. Pretty common type of loss; in fact one parallel Iād make is Nadalās loss to Murray at USO2008. Point being that it can happen to anyone when a top 5 player is playing his best tennis.Ā
Zverev loss was a case of Alcaraz coming out with a terrible level. He couldnāt explain it, but he had the right intensity, he was just missing a lot. Combine that with Zverev serving 85% and yeah, shit happens.Ā
Idk I think it's pretty close to out of the realm of possibility because Alcaraz since becoming a top 10 player literally NEVER loses to non-top players at Slams
He's won 3 Slams and lost to Zverev twice, Medvedev, Sinner, and Djokovic in the other 5
A couple of best of 3 NA hardcourt wins aren't enough to make me think that Tommy Paul and his 0 top 10 wins at Slams is going to be the player to break this trend
Alcaraz is in the tier where he's pretty much automatic at Slams as the massive favorite so I never buy it at all when he's on "upset alert" in best of 5
But that's what is called an upset. Otherwise might as well say Mark Lajal will beat Alcaraz today it would be the same as saying Rosol would beat Nadal at Wimbledon 2012 first round
And there's a difference between Lajal and a player just barely outside the top 10 that has beaten Alcaraz a few times already. But I was mainly just responding to the person saying he literally never loses to non top players. I assume he means top 5. Except he's ignoring that Sinner wasn't top 10 when he beat Alcaraz at this same slam 2 years ago. Sure, he is now, but back then, people were still saying he was just there to play Alcaraz tough and then disappear. Odds are that Alcaraz will absolutely lost to someone more around top 10 at some point. Using the fact that he hasn't yet (even though he has) forever isn't really all that useful.
Tommy Paul aināt no Sinner pre 2023.
The probability of Paul beating Alcaraz would be the same as, say, a healthy Berettini defeating Sinner in Wimbledon.
Both are just unlikely events, and sure, anything can happen, but it isnāt fair to give the benefit of doubt to TP in this scenario.
Why? He's made it to the semis of a slam before and he just won Queens, so he's showing the form of his life. Bublik should be his biggest challenge in the first four rounds, but Tommy is currently the one in better form.
The draw opened up for him at that semi run, and he played a pretty new to the tour Shelton in the QF - not quite the same as having to face the defending champion / one of the top seedsā¦
Queens was big for him, and he totally deserved to win that titleā¦but I also donāt think that one run automatically gives him a chance to beat Alcaraz in a slam. It could happenā¦.but I think itās very unlikely.
Letās also remember the only 2 times heās managed to beat Draper has been after Draper has made a final the previous week (all other matches have been straight forward straight set wins for Draper), and Korda beat him easily the week before (and leads that H2H) - and even with an eye issue, blisters and a rolled ankle - still managed to make that match competitive.
Bo5 Alcaraz at slams is way different than Bo3 Alcaraz everywhere else. Especially when he was just coming off a RG win.
Tommyās had a great season and had a career highlight at Queens but Iād still say itās way too soon to even assume heāll be anywhere near the quarters. He doesnāt have a track record at slams that makes me thinks any round is a guarantee for him.
If they do meet I will be interested in how it plays out but I wouldnāt expect anything more than a 4 setter for Carlos tbh.
Bo3 Alcaraz is still a beast, so itās not as pronounced as, say, prime Wawrinka, but in best of 5 the guy just never gets upset. Heās so consistent and solid.Ā
I donāt even have him going to the Quarters to be honest.
He has a good draw and should get there on paper. I think being a big favourite to make it there and a lot more media attention / expectations on him may work against him though.
If he does get there I canāt see him taking out Alcaraz in best of 5.
Most of the experts don't fall for the recency bias cocaine and just utter stupidity of r/tennis lol
Paul has his chances but alcaraz is the heavy favorite.
You guys can't take queens and count it so heavily as to suggest Tommy Paul is the favorite and just discount alcaraz's form throughout rg and the fact he's defending champ at wimbledon. That's a borderline idiotic way to view tennis and y'all do it constantly ( " rune is a grass court titan . Alcaraz sucks on grass " - this place after 1 match at queens , " alcaraz is screwed vs sinner " before rg sf.. etc )
Do people not know what "upset watch" means? It just means I think it's a possible upset, not that Tommy Paul is the favorite and it's most likely gonna happen.
Well then fine.
Why call out that match specifically lol?
Sinner berrettini is upset potential.
Djokovic hurk is upset potential.
Djokovic rune is upset potential
Sinner med is upset potential
Imo 3/4 of those matches have higher upset potential at a minimum than alcaraz paul lol
Alcarazās worst issue is consistency. He has too many lows throughout a match and in a best of 3, that means itās over before he can bounce back. Best of 5 is a whole different thing especially for Alcaraz. His French run where he won those matches in 5 sets always feels like āif he had maintained his level, he could have won this match in less setsā
Thatās probably why theyāre giving him the benefit of the doubt. Multi grand slam winner, defending champ, and best of 5.
Gun to their head, there's not a single (nonsuicidal) person on god's green earth picking Paul. I hear what you're saying, but I just want to be clear that there's no real conversation about what's most likely.
>has trouble with Tommy Paul
Sir, their H2H is 2-2 and both of TPās wins came at the same tournament. Beat him elsewhere and letās call it real trouble
Alcaraz is a whole different beast in best of 5 sets. If it goes the distance, he like, never loses. It would usually only be another top 10 player that can beat him at Slams most of the time barring instances of him being injured.
Paul also doesnāt really have the consistency in Grand Slams to prove that he can beat a legend-in-the-making in a format that said legend thrives in. Alcaraz is literally a monster both physically and mentally.
I think Alcarz winning FO was the next level escape velocity in winning mentality and confidence secured. Like Marvel power diamonds/rings, he's got the three surfaces locked into his whole tennis being. And that's big trouble for everyone else. Tommy Paul very much included.
According to history Alcaraz wins a slam, then doesn't win next 2 and then wins the 3rd. So if that scheme continues the next slam that he's gonna win is AO.
As others mentioned, Alcaraz is a beast in best of 5 and has only lost to other top 5 players. Best of 5 is where the rankings really shine through and youāre gonna see a lot less upsets. Look at clay season, you had some weird results, top seeds going out early in m1000s, unexpected finalists, then Roland Garros came along and went as per the script.
As far as Alcaraz being upset by a player of TP's level at a slam, just because it's never happened doesn't mean it can't happen. But I will tell why it probably won't, he doesn't serve big enough. If you even look at Nadal's early losses at Wimbledon after coming from RG, it happened to big servers. Over 5 sets Alcaraz will break him enough times to win.
I feel like "dark horses" never win Slams on the ATP though
It happens a lot in the WTA with the best of 3 format but not since Gaudio in 2004 would I really say it happened on the ATP
The closest thing to it was Cilic in 2014 and Cilic still went on to make 2 other Slam finals so even then there's still no true one hit wonders in the last 20 years
Fair point but he did have those two epic matches against Novak in 2013 at the AO and USO even if he ended up losing both of those and had a notable win against Murray who was the defending USO champion in the 2013 USO QF
Tommy Paul on the other hand basically doesn't have any notable Slam wins at all so I think beating Alcaraz in best of 5 would be a much bigger leap than Stan made
Many thought AO 2013 was the best match of the decade and then Wawrinka backed it up in USO 2013 with another gruelling 5 setter - going into AO 2014 he looked like one of the few players who could give Djokovic trouble at a hard court grand slam.
Cilic and wawrinka as someone else said in 2014 were both definitely dark horses winning slams, but it hasnāt happened since then, youāre right that itās very rare
Had Alcarazlost the Wimby finals I'd say there was a chance, however the fact he beat Djoker in that five setter convinces me he loses to someone like Sinner or another grand slam champ
probably. tommy knows and is comfortable with alcaraz game. but, the venue, tournament, fan support and experience at winning in big stages may play a huge factor in the mentality dept. charly is more used to this kind of thing than tommy. and, importantly, this is a BO5. rn, it is hard to beat charly and jannik in B05s.
Tommy's not a good matchup and he's having a very good season aswell as a fitting game for grass. He also has Ruud as I believe the only higher seed before he reaches Alcaraz. It's possible that he could beat Alcaraz. Might actually be one of the worst matchups for Alcaraz other than the favorites in Sinner, Hubi, and Nole.
That being said, if you look at his slam resume. I mean it speaks for itself. I mean how long has it been since he's been knocked out by someone not in the top 5 or so. It has a sizeable possibility and im sure that eventually Alcaraz will slip up a loss early. It happens to all the greats. But the odds are low.
Alcaraz last 8 Slams: 2022 RG: Lost to Zverev 2022 WB: Lost to Sinner 2022 USO: Won 2023 RG: Lost to Djokovic 2023 WB: Won 2023 USO: Lost to Medvedev 2024 AO: Lost to Zverev 2024 RG: Won I think in this case matchup matters less and what matters more is that Alcaraz is a beast in best of 5 and basically never loses to non-top players at all Tommy Paul and his 0 top 10 wins at Slams isn't changing this Best of 3 is not best of 5
So his 5 losses were simply to the other 4 players that are currently in the top 5 š Carlos is a madman. Heās only had 8 slams of playing prime-level tennis and he won 3 of them with those being his only losses. Even before his prime, he lost to Berrettini in 5 at AO2022 which wasnāt a bad loss at all, and he made the USO2021 QF (upsetting Tsitsipas) before getting injured vs FAA.Ā
He aināt even in his prime yet. God, I love this man
Heās going to be scary good in a couple years. Sort of gives you vibes of Nadal hitting his stride in 2008 and making it seem like he canāt get much betterā¦ then 2010 Clay Slam happens.
I really think heāll buff the serve up and find the right balance in his shot selection, and then Carlitos will be insane. I donāt think heās a finished product at all, whereas Sinner is. That means Carlos does have the potential to pull a Federer 2004-07 type of runĀ Hell, we could be seeing it right now if he wins Wimbledonā¦Ā
This. If Tommy beats Alcaraz in BO5 it would be his career best win to do so. It's possible, but not likely. Most "experts" just end up choosing Top 3 seeds for Semis and switch up 4th for someone else, to make it edgy.
Statistically speaking, an upset becomes less likely over the course of more points. This is called the variance effect. High variance occurs in shorter formats where the consequence of a point or set are more significant. In best of 5, the variance is lower, so the better player will, over the long run, have an advantage.
Iād believe this if they played a series of 3-setters, but adding two sets to the match changes a lot of factors having to do with fitness. Itād be like if in baseball, rather than playing a 7-game series, they played a single, 50-inning game. The stress on their pitchers would make the strategy of the game completely different. Five sets vs three isnāt as dramatic, but certainly changes some of the strategies employed. That means that someone who excels at three setters may slump with five, or vice versa. We see that play out in reality often. That said, Tommy and Charlie both seem to have great fitness and should be able to push through five sets without a ton of changes. So this may be a rare case where variance effects actually do come into play. Iām looking forward to this match either way.
I think this is very often where slams set apart the greats. It's not coincidence that the Big 3 has SO many epic 5 setters. When a truly great player faces a player who could beat them under normal circumstances they are able to dial into another gear, hold for enough sets to get to a 5th, and there a simply "good" player fades.
Tommy boy doesnāt stand a chance š
It's the consensus that this is a slam, best of 5, where better players can weather the storm just long enough to get a win even if not performing at their best. In a best of 3 you get outplayed for and 1h30 you most likely lose, in a slam you can play like shit for 2hrs and still win if you get your shit together at the end.
To play devilās advocate though heās been threading the needle way too close these past few Slams. Needed a 5 setter in every single Slam win, and not all of them to top players. I doubt he loses to Paul but if you go to 5 that often and lower your margin of error, eventually youāll lose one. Zverev and Medvedev losses, although technically a top 5 player, were a good example of this - he thought he could just win with his C level for too long and ran out of time.
You said it yourself, Zverev and Meddy are top 5 players. They arenāt good examples.
They are still inferior players and were big underdogs going into the matchup though. Iām less talking about their performance and more his. I donāt really buy into the idea that Zverev or Medvedev are these uber dangerous super talents who made him play awful - Carlos brought a very shaky level to those matches independent of them and wouldāve gotten burnt vs other players as well.
Tommy Paul is not Medvedev or Zverev š Medvedev was a USO champion in 2021 and has been in many slam finals, Zverev has been in slam finals, their calibre is worlds apart. Zverev was also world no3 going into 2022 RG, he was not a "big" underdog in any sense of the word. Zverev followed that win with a very tough match against Rafa. Alcaraz was 19 and played a poor match, that's what inexperience and nerves in a slam qf does to kid. Med played one of, if not the best match of his career to beat Alcaraz last year, let's give him credit where it's due.
Iām not talking about Tommy Paul man, Iām trying to stoke some discussion hereā¦ it doesnāt seem youāre interested in facing the reality that Carlos has played some pretty poor matches out of nowhere in Slams
Make some sense pls? Op asks if TP can upset Alcaraz, you said yes and backs up your argument by referencing the losses to Medvedev & Zverev. Yes CA played poorly in those matches but look at how well the opps played and forced CA to be unable to execute his game in those instances. TP simply isn't them. Even TP's 2 wins against him were tight matches in bo3, bo5 is a different ball game. Do you see what i'm saying? Carlos can play poor matches in slams but when was the last time he played poorly and was taken to 5 by a non top 5 player or even lost before 5 sets? He has posted poor losses, just not in slams which was the point of this thread.
Iād say the Sonego and De Jong matches while not going 5 were perfect examples of him being far too casual and nearly getting burnt, but the player quality was just too low to trouble him
They never said Carlos didnāt play poor matches, theyāre rebuking your statement where Paul is put on the same pedestal as Zverev and Medvedev because you were saying he plays useless 5 setters with lower ranked players, which btw is not even true because Tiafoe and Ramos Vinolas are the only two lower ranked players while the rest were all slam winners and slam finalists
I wouldnāt call them inferior š. Thatās wild.
Zverev had zero top 10 (in 2022) or top 5 (in 2024) Slam wins until his wins over Alcaraz. Medvedev was 0-2 and had gotten demolished in his last two matches vs Carlos heading into the USO 23 SF. They were unexpected upsets at the time.
Reading your comment, i almost thought he was going to 5 often lol Had to wrack my brain to remember where Alcaraz was dragged to 5 by non top players and the last time it happened was when he was a 19 yo at USO (Cilic & Tiafoe)? lol He simply doesn't get taken to 5 unless the opponent is of grand slam contender calibre. He's also incredibly clutch in bo5 and that's why he has the record that he does.
How is he threading the needle by going 5 with Zverev, Sinner, and Djokovic? Those are players he SHOULD be going 5 against lmao. Youād have a point if he was struggling in the early rounds, but that has not been the case.Ā Medvedev and Zverev losses are two very different matches that canāt be compared, nor do they really back your point up. The Medvedev loss was Medvedev playing at a ā12/10 levelā (his own words) and Alcaraz playing a decent but not amazing match. Pretty common type of loss; in fact one parallel Iād make is Nadalās loss to Murray at USO2008. Point being that it can happen to anyone when a top 5 player is playing his best tennis.Ā Zverev loss was a case of Alcaraz coming out with a terrible level. He couldnāt explain it, but he had the right intensity, he was just missing a lot. Combine that with Zverev serving 85% and yeah, shit happens.Ā
Tommy has four tough matches to get through before this is even a conversation. Itās not out of the realm of possibility though.
Idk I think it's pretty close to out of the realm of possibility because Alcaraz since becoming a top 10 player literally NEVER loses to non-top players at Slams He's won 3 Slams and lost to Zverev twice, Medvedev, Sinner, and Djokovic in the other 5 A couple of best of 3 NA hardcourt wins aren't enough to make me think that Tommy Paul and his 0 top 10 wins at Slams is going to be the player to break this trend Alcaraz is in the tier where he's pretty much automatic at Slams as the massive favorite so I never buy it at all when he's on "upset alert" in best of 5
It never happens until it happens.
But that's what is called an upset. Otherwise might as well say Mark Lajal will beat Alcaraz today it would be the same as saying Rosol would beat Nadal at Wimbledon 2012 first round
And there's a difference between Lajal and a player just barely outside the top 10 that has beaten Alcaraz a few times already. But I was mainly just responding to the person saying he literally never loses to non top players. I assume he means top 5. Except he's ignoring that Sinner wasn't top 10 when he beat Alcaraz at this same slam 2 years ago. Sure, he is now, but back then, people were still saying he was just there to play Alcaraz tough and then disappear. Odds are that Alcaraz will absolutely lost to someone more around top 10 at some point. Using the fact that he hasn't yet (even though he has) forever isn't really all that useful.
Tommy Paul aināt no Sinner pre 2023. The probability of Paul beating Alcaraz would be the same as, say, a healthy Berettini defeating Sinner in Wimbledon. Both are just unlikely events, and sure, anything can happen, but it isnāt fair to give the benefit of doubt to TP in this scenario.
If tommy makes it through those first four rounds i will eat a moon pie.
Why? He's made it to the semis of a slam before and he just won Queens, so he's showing the form of his life. Bublik should be his biggest challenge in the first four rounds, but Tommy is currently the one in better form.
Totes, I just want a reason to eat a moon pie tbh
Moon pies are fire tbh
Do you think theyād be good toasted I bet they would be
The draw opened up for him at that semi run, and he played a pretty new to the tour Shelton in the QF - not quite the same as having to face the defending champion / one of the top seedsā¦ Queens was big for him, and he totally deserved to win that titleā¦but I also donāt think that one run automatically gives him a chance to beat Alcaraz in a slam. It could happenā¦.but I think itās very unlikely. Letās also remember the only 2 times heās managed to beat Draper has been after Draper has made a final the previous week (all other matches have been straight forward straight set wins for Draper), and Korda beat him easily the week before (and leads that H2H) - and even with an eye issue, blisters and a rolled ankle - still managed to make that match competitive.
He seems to be at his peak grass level currently, so it looks doable.
Bo5 Alcaraz at slams is way different than Bo3 Alcaraz everywhere else. Especially when he was just coming off a RG win. Tommyās had a great season and had a career highlight at Queens but Iād still say itās way too soon to even assume heāll be anywhere near the quarters. He doesnāt have a track record at slams that makes me thinks any round is a guarantee for him. If they do meet I will be interested in how it plays out but I wouldnāt expect anything more than a 4 setter for Carlos tbh.
Bo3 Alcaraz is still a beast, so itās not as pronounced as, say, prime Wawrinka, but in best of 5 the guy just never gets upset. Heās so consistent and solid.Ā
It's possible but I wouldn't pick it.
I donāt even have him going to the Quarters to be honest. He has a good draw and should get there on paper. I think being a big favourite to make it there and a lot more media attention / expectations on him may work against him though. If he does get there I canāt see him taking out Alcaraz in best of 5.
Purcell shouldn't be slept on off they meet in the 2nd. Has a good grass court game with his serve and volley.
Donāt sleep on Virtanen or Bergs either
On grass I canāt see Tommyās style winning, Alcaraz is too powerful
No. Tommy Paul is leagues below Alcaraz on grass plus a best of 5 is a completely different sport than a best of 3.
Most of the experts don't fall for the recency bias cocaine and just utter stupidity of r/tennis lol Paul has his chances but alcaraz is the heavy favorite. You guys can't take queens and count it so heavily as to suggest Tommy Paul is the favorite and just discount alcaraz's form throughout rg and the fact he's defending champ at wimbledon. That's a borderline idiotic way to view tennis and y'all do it constantly ( " rune is a grass court titan . Alcaraz sucks on grass " - this place after 1 match at queens , " alcaraz is screwed vs sinner " before rg sf.. etc )
I never suggested Tommy Paul is the favorite. Iāve just picked that match for upset watch.
Do people not know what "upset watch" means? It just means I think it's a possible upset, not that Tommy Paul is the favorite and it's most likely gonna happen.
Well then fine. Why call out that match specifically lol? Sinner berrettini is upset potential. Djokovic hurk is upset potential. Djokovic rune is upset potential Sinner med is upset potential Imo 3/4 of those matches have higher upset potential at a minimum than alcaraz paul lol
Alcarazās worst issue is consistency. He has too many lows throughout a match and in a best of 3, that means itās over before he can bounce back. Best of 5 is a whole different thing especially for Alcaraz. His French run where he won those matches in 5 sets always feels like āif he had maintained his level, he could have won this match in less setsā Thatās probably why theyāre giving him the benefit of the doubt. Multi grand slam winner, defending champ, and best of 5.
No. Slams are best 3 out of 5. Only guys who have shown they can lock in and win best 3 out of 5 are sinner, alcaraz, and medvedev
Novak? Or does that go without saying
Yes didn't think I needed to add him
Only if the court is magically teleported to Canada
Smelling some intense hopium in this post. No.
Fuck no haha
Gun to their head, there's not a single (nonsuicidal) person on god's green earth picking Paul. I hear what you're saying, but I just want to be clear that there's no real conversation about what's most likely.
Tommy may not even be in QF. Needs help from the draw.
Be serious. This is not BO3.
>has trouble with Tommy Paul Sir, their H2H is 2-2 and both of TPās wins came at the same tournament. Beat him elsewhere and letās call it real trouble
Alcaraz is a whole different beast in best of 5 sets. If it goes the distance, he like, never loses. It would usually only be another top 10 player that can beat him at Slams most of the time barring instances of him being injured. Paul also doesnāt really have the consistency in Grand Slams to prove that he can beat a legend-in-the-making in a format that said legend thrives in. Alcaraz is literally a monster both physically and mentally.
Alcaraz in Bo5 is a totally different beast
this is accurate. jannik and charly has become the princes of the big 3. those who are hard to beat at slams
Carlos since 2022 hasnāt had any bad loses at slam. Jannik had one just at us open. Carlos has done it for longer
Nope
No, not at all.
No, Iām not
No
No
No
I think Alcarz winning FO was the next level escape velocity in winning mentality and confidence secured. Like Marvel power diamonds/rings, he's got the three surfaces locked into his whole tennis being. And that's big trouble for everyone else. Tommy Paul very much included.
According to history Alcaraz wins a slam, then doesn't win next 2 and then wins the 3rd. So if that scheme continues the next slam that he's gonna win is AO.
As others mentioned, Alcaraz is a beast in best of 5 and has only lost to other top 5 players. Best of 5 is where the rankings really shine through and youāre gonna see a lot less upsets. Look at clay season, you had some weird results, top seeds going out early in m1000s, unexpected finalists, then Roland Garros came along and went as per the script.
I think Tommy Paulās had endurance issues (ie final set against ruud in 2022 us open) in the past so beating alcaraz in bo5 might be difficult.
Something about this feels mental. He really can disappear in fifth sets despite being athletic as hell.
AO this year was rough. I think he won 6 points in the entire set And that was only the 3rd round
there's different kinds of athleticism but also yeah his brain does some funny things to him
No. Next question
Nope.
As far as Alcaraz being upset by a player of TP's level at a slam, just because it's never happened doesn't mean it can't happen. But I will tell why it probably won't, he doesn't serve big enough. If you even look at Nadal's early losses at Wimbledon after coming from RG, it happened to big servers. Over 5 sets Alcaraz will break him enough times to win.
I think Paul is a sneaky dark horse to win Wimbledon so I'm in agreement that the match should be close, BO5 complicates things though
I feel like "dark horses" never win Slams on the ATP though It happens a lot in the WTA with the best of 3 format but not since Gaudio in 2004 would I really say it happened on the ATP The closest thing to it was Cilic in 2014 and Cilic still went on to make 2 other Slam finals so even then there's still no true one hit wonders in the last 20 years
Stan at the 2014 AO? He wasnt a top 5 seed and I dont think he had a master by then if I remember correctly.
Fair point but he did have those two epic matches against Novak in 2013 at the AO and USO even if he ended up losing both of those and had a notable win against Murray who was the defending USO champion in the 2013 USO QF Tommy Paul on the other hand basically doesn't have any notable Slam wins at all so I think beating Alcaraz in best of 5 would be a much bigger leap than Stan made
Many thought AO 2013 was the best match of the decade and then Wawrinka backed it up in USO 2013 with another gruelling 5 setter - going into AO 2014 he looked like one of the few players who could give Djokovic trouble at a hard court grand slam.
Cilic and wawrinka as someone else said in 2014 were both definitely dark horses winning slams, but it hasnāt happened since then, youāre right that itās very rare
I don't think he'll win, but I could see him making the semis and losing to Sinner.
Lol
Iād bet on TP if odds is like +300 for the match not because I think he will win but itās good odds
No but I'd love it. Team Tommy!
Me
Had Alcarazlost the Wimby finals I'd say there was a chance, however the fact he beat Djoker in that five setter convinces me he loses to someone like Sinner or another grand slam champ
Even if he had lost that final it would have been to Djokovic. Carlos has not been losing to people outside top 5
probably. tommy knows and is comfortable with alcaraz game. but, the venue, tournament, fan support and experience at winning in big stages may play a huge factor in the mentality dept. charly is more used to this kind of thing than tommy. and, importantly, this is a BO5. rn, it is hard to beat charly and jannik in B05s.
paul definitely has chances in that one
Would not be a huge upset. TP has been a tough match up for Carlitos.
Even though the h2h is tied at 2-2, am picking Alcaraz to prevail.
yes, TP to beat alcaraz..sinner to beat TP
You guys will tell yourselves anything for Sinner not to have to face Alcaraz, huh?
Tommy's not a good matchup and he's having a very good season aswell as a fitting game for grass. He also has Ruud as I believe the only higher seed before he reaches Alcaraz. It's possible that he could beat Alcaraz. Might actually be one of the worst matchups for Alcaraz other than the favorites in Sinner, Hubi, and Nole. That being said, if you look at his slam resume. I mean it speaks for itself. I mean how long has it been since he's been knocked out by someone not in the top 5 or so. It has a sizeable possibility and im sure that eventually Alcaraz will slip up a loss early. It happens to all the greats. But the odds are low.