“They brought us a gift, that is what this match was,” is how former legend Jim Courier described the tennis spectacle put on by Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner at Court Philippe-Chatrier. In an all-important French Open final, the World No. 1 and World No. 2 gave it all they had during the 5-hour, 29-minute encounter. While Sinner initially took the lead and reached the brink of his maiden Roland Garros triumph, Alcaraz compelled the crowd to stand on its feet, saving three championship points and eventually winning the trophy in a fifth-set decider—delivering one of the greatest slam finals in history, especially on the Parisian clay. But were they able it catch up to Rafael Nadal, the 14-time Roland Garros winner?

That’s one question that’s doing the rounds lately, thanks to a debatable comment by former American great John McEnroe. Ahead of the epic battle between Alcaraz and Sinner, McEnroe was left highly impressed with how the duo played throughout the tournament before reaching the summit clash. The 7-time slam champion even went on to imply that, according to him, Alcaraz and Sinner are so good that can even beat Nadal during his prime. “You would make a serious argument with both guys that they would be favoured to beat Nadal, at his best,” reported TNT Sports on June 8. “The tennis level right now is higher than I’ve ever seen,” he claimed regarding the two modern stars. But is McEnroe’s claim justifiable?

Ever since the controversial comment went viral, there have been varying reactions from the inner tennis circle. For example, ex-American pros like Sam Querrey, Jack Sock, Steve Johnson, and John Isner have got polarizing takes. When Querrey asked Johnson for his reaction on whether Alcaraz and Sinner can beat Nadal at his best, he simply said, “No” while adding, “The guy (Rafa) was a 100,000-2 there in his career” Querrey, however, sided with McEnroe’s claim. “I don’t know I think I like Alcaraz over Rafa, I hate to say that,” he said, prompting Johnson to exclaim, “Oh. That’s insane.”

Interestingly, Isner also agreed with McEnroe’s take. “It’s not unfathomable to think that those two guys could beat Rafa on any given day.” But he also mentioned how they’re “certainly not the favorites.” However, Sock completely disagreed with Querrey and Isner. “Like Prime Rafa, like Capris Rafa, sleeveless Rafa. He’s winning in straights (sets) against both those guys.” His reaction made Querrey jump to defend his argument. He told Sock, “No! Get out of here dude. Rafa never played anyone that hit the ball like Carlos.” But guess what? Sock had a valid reason to add weight to his point. “They’re not hitting the ball like that against Rafa in his prime. Rafa’s hitting like his heavy forehands, he’s doing what Rafa does. They’re not hitting the ball like that back.”

Isner agreed, “Good point Jack. That’s a good point.” Sock continued with his argument, saying, “They’re playing a baseline game. They obviously all strike the ball incredible but it’s all in the slot. Rafa is doing different things. Rafa is hitting heavy forehands, grunting. They’re behind the baseline, they’re not like rocking balls back. Not doing that every point in and out.” However, Querrey still stuck to his argument. “I’m just saying like if they play ten times, Rafa wins six.” But Johnson claimed, “Nine”.

While there seems to be a contradiction among the former icons, certain ATP pros are clear in their heads of McEnroe’s explosive comment. Take for example, ex-British legend and Novak Djokovic’s former coach Andy Murray…

Andy Murray refutes John McEnroe’s remarks over Rafael Nadal

In an interaction with BBC last week, three-time slam champion Andy Murray shared his take on the heated debate. “Winning 20-plus majors is something exceptional and it’s easy in today’s age to forget a little bit about that. I saw some pundits saying if (Alcaraz and Sinner) went on court against Rafa at the French Open, they would be favourites going into that match with Rafa in his prime,” Murray said.

He agreed that “Alcaraz and Sinner are on the path to being two of the best, no doubt about that, but it takes time to build what Roger, Rafa, and Novak had. We’ll see whether they get that.” Murray’s take makes sense as well. Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have all spent over two decades in tennis already. All three of them have won 20 or more majors in singles. That’s a huge milestone. On the other hand, Alcaraz and Sinner are still in the early stages of their tennis career, having won five and three slams, respectively.

Once they both end up spending a decade on the court, maybe then one can actually begin comparisons with the ‘Big Three’. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the Spaniard and the Italian can really beat Nadal at his best? Let us know in the comments below.