"To lazily say they’re comfortably better doesn’t sit well with me" - Petchey and Petkovic side with Tsonga amid Mouratoglou drama

There has been an interesting debate going round led by well-respected tennis coach Patrick Mouratoglou and former Grand Slam finalist Jo-Wilfried Tsonga on whether the top 10 was better in the past than it is now.

It has seemed to split the opinion of many with Tsonga firmly arguing that it is stronger now, with Mouratoglou coming back at him and asserting why he was wrong. The discussion was continued on The Big T Podcast with Mark Petchey and Andrea Petkovic offering their two cents on the topic, with a former Grand Slam champion's view being introduced.

Petchey believed that Mouratoglou was pinpointing the big two players currently on the ATP Tour. "The headline I saw was that Sinner and Alcaraz would beat the Big Four," the Brit stated. "That seemed to be the main takeaway from what he was saying."

Petkovic touched upon the fact that Mouratoglou was leaning on the young players of this generation reaching the incredible heights of the players who came before, with no guarantee that is the case. "He also said you have to give players like Holger Rune time because he’s still so young and already top 10. Who knows? Mouratoglou’s point was that, in hindsight, it’s easy to say Juan Martín del Potro was great — but when he was 21, where was he? That’s his comparison with Rune. He’s so young. Who knows where he’ll be in five years? Maybe we’ll look at him the way we look at Tsonga now."

There was no chance that Petchey was already comparing Alcaraz and Sinner to the Big Four already. "I think it’s a fair comment. But to say that Sinner and Alcaraz are already better than the Big Four at this stage of their careers — I just think that’s a stretch. That’s recency bias. Because you’re seeing them every single day, you think, 'Well, of course they’re the best — that’s what I’m watching.'"

His argument led to the expertise of Rafael Nadal, especially when he broke through into the sport's upper echelon. "You can’t tell me that Rafa on clay isn’t beating those guys," Petchey said. "Let’s just take a look at Nadal as an 18- or 19-year-old. His 2005 season: Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome, Montreal, Madrid, Barcelona, Beijing, Båstad, Acapulco, Stuttgart — and Miami runner-up. It’s one of the best teenage seasons of all time, in my opinion. We forget that this guy was on another level. But because it was in 2005, we suddenly consign it to the dustbin and say, 'Well, that was a different era. It wasn’t as strong.'"

He argued that it was a lazy argument with every player able to beat anyone. "Would they all beat each other on different days? One hundred percent. They’d all beat each other in different moments. Yes, they’re in the same ballpark as the Big Four. There’s no doubt they’re going to be in that stratosphere. But to lazily say they’re comfortably better doesn’t sit well with me."

Mouratoglou used 'evolution' as part of his argument for this, something that was quickly shut down by Petchey. "If you argue evolution — that players keep getting better — then when you have four of the greatest players ever in the same era, surely the players behind them must also be stronger," he commented. "They were playing one of those four nearly every week — sometimes two of them in a tournament. Players like Berdych and Dimitrov had to butt heads with those guys constantly. That raises the standard."

Petkovic got the opinion of six-time Grand Slam champion Boris Becker on this. But first, she shared her thoughts. "The issue I have is with the idea that tennis always evolves and always gets better. I’ve been in tennis for over 20 years — Patrick obviously has even more experience — but in my time on tour, tennis hasn’t only evolved upward. It goes in waves."

Alcaraz and Sinner have risen the level of tennis so high that people are looking at this generation differently until the next one. "You get a generation that isn’t quite as strong as the previous one," she admitted. "Then suddenly you get Sinner and Alcaraz. In ten years, maybe we’ll again have a generation that isn’t quite as strong. Then another teenage phenom will arrive."

She used this argument in a different sport. "From my experience, tennis — and sport in general — goes in waves. I see it in football. Sometimes Bayern [Munich] win the league by 25 points. Other years it’s tight because three or four teams can challenge them."

The German than listened to what Becker had to say. "Boris Becker made a very simple argument. He said to me: 'Andrea, I coached Novak when he was 28. Novak at 28 was better than Novak is today at 38. But Novak is still playing for Grand Slams. So there’s the argument. Back then, they were stronger than they are now.' And I thought — that kind of makes sense."

Emma Raducanu's former coach was quick to agree with this insight. "I would never argue with Boris — and I certainly wouldn’t argue with that analogy. I couldn’t agree more. It goes back to recency bias. We forget how great those players were."

He went on to say that players from a much older generation would feel totally disrespected. "If I’m honest, it’s a bit disrespectful to the greats of the past — [Jimmy] Connors, [John] McEnroe, Borg," he stated. "McEnroe lost three matches in one season — I can’t remember the exact year, but I was prepping for an interview and read about it. Three matches. You can’t tell me that in this era, with modern rackets and equipment, he wouldn’t be an absolute monster out there, disrupting players’ rhythm."

Petchey was confident that the ability that the Big Four possessed on court was as good if not better than now. "You’re allowed to have an opinion. That doesn’t mean it’s right. There’s no real way to measure it. But having watched almost all the Big Four matches — I saw nearly all 60 matches between Novak and Rafa — what I watched back then was equally, if not superior, to what we’re watching now."

Petkovic concluded the argument to say that Tsonga has a more reliable view of this in the fact that he had competed against all these players. "Even for us, watching closely — and yes, Patrick has done the same — it’s very different from someone like Tsonga, who might have won multiple majors in another era," she said.

"He played these guys. He was on Centre Court at Wimbledon against them. He played them on Arthur Ashe at the US Open. That’s a completely different experience to base your argument on. I’m not saying that if you never played, you can’t understand tennis — that’s not true. But having played them, having felt what it’s like across the net from them — that adds another layer."