That forehand squash shot at 5-6 30-30 was insane. HOW did he get it, HOW did it get enough air that Sinner had to check and reverse, HOW did he have the certainty to hit the crosscourt backhand winner. Without that forehand, if it goes past him or he gets it and it goes out, he's matchpoint down again, and in the event Sinner crushed the return so it went back to deuce but it could have been..
The one stat that I pulled out was points won on second serve, which I think is always telling: I've always believed that you can predict the winner of a match going in by their tournament-so-far percentage won on second serve return.
The RG stats machine said it went like this:
• points total won on return: Sinner 40% (71/194), Alcaraz 39% (75/191)
• points won on return of first serve: Sinner 37% (42/113), Alcaraz 30% (31/103)
• points won on return of 2nd serve: Sinner 43% (35/81), Alcaraz 50% (44/88) - the only stat on return of serve where he's ahead.
Was patiently waiting for your take on this match :) I'm well on the side thinking 'Sinner is the better overall player, but he has a matchup issue with Alcaraz'. For a short (well, not that short) it looked like he figured it out, but Alcaraz simply has something no one on tour has and that's the combination of almost being able to go bomb-to-bomb with Sinner for certain stretches, with an unrivaled movement and shot arsenal. It's no match for Rune (I still believe in him) at least :) Great read, as always
I am not sure SInner is the better player, as much as Sinner is the more stable and consistent player. His dips are never as bad as Alcaraz's, but his highs are also never as high as Alcaraz's. The thing that i simultaneously like and dislike about Sinner's game. under his coach Darren Cahill, is that cahill has completely changed Sinner's game, from a very powerful and explosive game, from both the FH and BH, to a now very consistent, low risk, just-putting-the-ball-back-deep game. This has allowed Sinner to consistently reach the latter stages of tournaments, but against his biggest nemesis Alcaraz, he cant seem to access his power game as comfortably as before, and I really do think that's one of the reasons he cant seem to win against Alcaraz these days. Sinner's floor is higher now but his ceiling is lower now
I think Sinner's losses have mainly been because of his serve/poor 1st %. I think the groundstrokes are incredible. Their H2H could still simply be variance and/or surface skew as well. They haven't played much on faster hard courts lately (latest one was Miami 23 and Sinner won). Here at RG, in evening clay, Sinner still looked like he rushed Alcaraz. That's a scary prospect for the faster slams on the calendar
This is i have also noted, especially during this FO classic. SInner couldnt put in a first serve if his life depended on it. Poor first serve percentage
Yes i think so. He had a nice balance of staying consistent, but also being aggressive and constantly put pressure on Alcaraz. Now, if Alcaraz can vary his shots and doesnt make errors while attacking, he can beat Sinner consistently, as he has showed till now
To me, the last string of matchs is variance excessively leaning in Alcaraz favor. Point-by-point basis, they are even, like really even with maybe a very tiny edge to Sinner thanks to its better serve (Dominance ratio is 1.01).
When you go to Tennis Abstract, you find out that the H2H gives the following metrics :
Dominance ratio is 1.01 for Alcaraz (basically they win the same amount of point out of the other's serve) but 64% win in TB.
Also in average 1st serve in % for Sinner dropped much more than Alcaraz's versus their season's performance.
But indeed, it seems that Alcaraz is able to create more opportunities to break. He seems like he is able to string together longer dominant sequences than Sinner's but I don't see it sustainable. When you watch the matches, he still is more "lucky" in the clutch than Sinner with god mode sequences.
One day-after thought: I think yesterday showed the true payoff of years of "My Way" showboating tennis by Carlitos. In any given point, going for weird shots, risky plays and almost hopeless draining sprints is often point-suboptimal and/or match-suboptimal. But then you arrive to a match that is as difficult and as meaningful as a Roland Garros final against your generational rival with a well-tuned game, and you get two substantial and even decisive power-ups. In first place, when your time is running out you receive the critical support of the crowd that you have rightfully earned by constantly choosing to do those flamboyant things not because they are easy, but precisely because they are hard. And in second place, when you're against the strings in the highest of stakes and only the impossible and the exceptional will do, you will believe that there is always a chance of finding a way forward, because you've already done it over and over after years of living and thriving on the edge. This philosophy is, in this way, the exact opposite of Zverev's pachyderm playstyle, which by grazing comfortable points and wins deprives the player of opportunities to develop competence and confidence in the exceptional situations that can define a career. As you wrote in the past, there are Federer echoes in My Way tennis - arguably the most vulnerable game in the Big 3/4, and yet maybe the most appreciated precisely because of its embrace of risk and vulnerability. In the end, tennis will never desert those who believe in tennis.
Really good points. The cheers do matter, especially in the latter stages of a tournament when everyone, even the superhuman like these two, are running on fumes.
The question is, will flamboyance/riskier shots expire before steadiness? My guess is yes, but Carlos has at least another 5-6 years (in baseball at least, year 26/27 is your peak, where physical athletics and gameplay experience reach their zenith), so we will all be treated to mind-blowing shots for years to come.
I hope both stay healthy and hungry. You just never know what the future holds.
Oh, I feel that the Italian will resume claiming his share Sinner rather than later; he has all but closed their clay gap quite fast already, it seems, and even better chances await him this season and the next ones. Magic cannot win you a Slam on its own, but it can certainly provide a small edge, and yesterday that X factor was the element that may have tipped the scales on an otherwise fairly even match.
Honestly Alcaraz has all the craftyness and skills in the world but on Sunday, Sinner showed some exceptional shots as well such as that behind the leg half-volley improvisation that is Fed/Alcaraz level of skill.
A couple volleys on nuclear forehands cut my breath as well in the stadium.
Furthermore, that on-the-run FH is another masterpiece of Sinner : the slow-mo or de visu shows a perfect centering of the racquet and the ball is an absolute missile. And yet, Sinner is able to recover very quickly to go the other way : that perfect combination of all the moving parts is something incredible as well.
Overall, the ball-striking of Sinner is another level versus Alcaraz when you watch the slow-motions : Sinner's ball is almost everytime perfectly clean whereas Alcaraz enjoys much more the tolerance of the strings. The sound of their ball is not the same and Alcaraz's is much more noisy live.
The thing that impressed me the most about Sinner's FH is the stability and full-body control on the slide, he's skiing with the lower body while providing a stable base for accelerating and maintaining control of the shot, there's obviously some power / control loss when compared to a static stroke but not as much as most of the field. In contrast, Carlitos usually relies more on rolled forehands when he cannot set his feet, which is biomechanically sound but a lower margin shot (particularly since he hits very fast, but the path is too sharp in that situation, so sometimes he loses directional control or shanks or catches it too low on the racquet). If I was on Carlos' team I'd try to fetch enough tape and compare it with Nadal's, who had a firmer grasp of that swing pattern (though there are also elements of racket setup and risk tolerance / aggresiveness that make the comparison harder).
I wouldn't put that much stock on the impact sound - it depends a lot on racket specs, strings, and string tension, not just the technique.
About the ball striking, I have always been baffled by Nadal's slow-motions where it is quite often not centered (I have a vivid memory of a running forehand at FO 2017 final vs Wavrinka where it is was hit very close to the frame and yet it was a banana forehand).
On a lesser level, Alcaraz doesn't hit that clean. On the other hand, Sinner's running forehand is just dead center, almost everytime.
I may be really wrong but I dare say that Sinner's ball striking is like Agassi's (very clean) while Alcaraz is more similar to Sampras's (an incredible athletic gift muscling the ball out of the string).
I am fine saying that I love 90's tennis due to the bonus of clean hit : you get immediately when the ball is not centered. Afterwards, the bonus is not that striking anymore and the improvement in movements made tennis sometimes too close to attrition war.
To be honest, I'm not sure if hitting outside the "center" in the transverse plane on a modern topspin groundstroke is by itself a technical deficiency. I can't find any discussion of this but my feeling was that players (or at least myself) unconsciously develop some bias towards hitting on the trailing half of the racquet, based on 1) framing (shanking) with the trailing edge being more common 2) the racquet often flipping forward on contact, signalling a below-center (in the court reference system) impact* and 3) sometimes showing up on side-view shots (e.g. here's https://imgur.com/a/hlmX5ZZ the first forehand I grabbed from a slow-motion video from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roc4Yao6iqE ). I think it would make sense for the PoV of physics (the forward flip adding spin as the racquet "brushes up" the ball to a greater extent), but again maybe it's just my perception.
From the US perspective, I'd like to tip the cap to TNT/Warner/Max for outstanding coverage. Sure, the commentary was WAY too US-centric, and didn't utilize Petchy enough, but they showed every match. Every match was available for replay. And they employed House of Highlights and Bleacher Report YouTube channels for extended highlights and analysis.
A report from the comment I put on the previous article. Please forgive my poor English, I am French afterall !
A small summary of the final that I was lucky enough to assist live in the stands.
First of all, a small comment about the public : overall very fair-play, no booing nor insults save for the 4th set where it was excessively pushing for Alcaraz with plenty of noise made between serves and clapping of 2nd serves by Sinner.
According to Infosys, the breakdown couldn't be more equal (193 vs 192 pts in favor of Sinner), they served 191 vs 194 times as well. Equal performance on return (Sinner won 2 out of 3 "extra points" from Alcaraz).
The difference lies in the clutch, because for the same number of breaks (7), Sinner had 12 games on the line versus 9 for Alcaraz. Likewise, Alcaraz won many more points on the tie-breaks.
It is pattern that tends to sediment in that H2H : very equal on a point-by-point basis (even a slight edge for Sinner) but Alcaraz is overperforming in the clutch. If you follow the in-depth data analysis from Jeff Sackmann, it cannot last forever and Sinner is bound to have a return of sorts in the future.
However, this match, it is surprising to see how strikingly they built on their strenght. The rally length analysis gives a big edge to Sinner for short rallyes (less than 4 shots, +13), meanwhile midle-menght (5-9) & long rallyes yielded -13 altogether. The extra ace by Sinner gives the point edge.
So basically, Sinner is better at "match tennis" meanwhile Alcaraz is better at "game tennis". The visual impression from the stands confirms this as Sinner is an exceptionnal spot server, reaching within 10 cm from the lines. I cannot also emphasize enough the quality of their 2nd serves, routinely over 100 mph (160+ Km/h for us internationalist measurement system users) especially Sinners.
Alcaraz finally had a fairly high 1st serve rate but it is its weakest shot (too often 50+cm within the box) while Sinner struggled with his 1st rate.
Both incredible returners overall, seldom being aced, killing any 2nd lower than 150 km/h middle-box deliveries.
Sinner still has more upside in my opinion than Alcaraz who outplayed himself during the whole match. Sinner delivered a less stellar performance than against Djokovic in my impression.
I have been a regular at RG for the last 25 years but 1st final. But as you know, real gourmets prefer the 3rd & 4th round to go the Slams. The insider tip is court 14 which very often has the best planning during the 1st week for a knowledgeable follower (ideal mix of prospects, old stars, darlings and potential tight matches).
Philippe Chatrier is honestly the worse with only 3 matches due to the night session, rarely with exciting matchs due to the one-sided opposition or the Frenchmen with their bland games.
Suzanne Lenglen is the ideal size (not too big) and it is easy to play the French game of sneaking our way down to the court. In 2002 I eventually reached the ground for the match between Serena and Patrova for example !
An excellent analysis as always, one that felt more sentimental/love of the game than the others, which makes sense : as you said, this match defies analysis.
For as good as Sinner's running FH is and as been in this match (certainly much better than it was in Rome), I still think this shot (as well as, and maybe more, the FH from set positions) is the one that "cost" him this match. I think Gill Gross did a great job breaking down how Carlos won the FH battle, especially using width.
I know you've gotten to like Jannik's merry go-round setup especially for how compact it is and its relative lack of moving parts, but on clay especially, I'd still take Carlos's ferris wheel. It's the best on fast HC, but when faced with wide balls and height, I still think the laggy parts of the setup from your original DoF theory offer some vulnerabilities when it comes to control. Alcaraz has running FH vulnerability too, but for other technical reasons (initial racket inverted). Two great FHs, but maybe just a tad worse than the ideal modern FH theory.
I'm going to go back over this match with a forehand focus, and one thing I have long suspected with Sinner's forehand is that when he is moving to his right and plays it open-stance, THAT is when it is most vulnerable. He hits it better on the dead-run/with the left leg crossing over, as it steadies his upper body more. Will see if there is something that bleeds through when I re-watch with that focus.
I would say Sinner’s FH « vulnerabilities » were especially apparent from set 3 onwards, and particularly on pressure points. 2 errors in the 3-5 game with MPs for example
I observed that his legs were partly taken out...his energy level happened to dip at the worst time. There is a bit of luck...almost like not meant to be...
Been waiting for this since the final ended, and it didn't disappoint.
Btw unless I'm mistaken he's now 13-1 in 5 setters. Uchiyama, Tsitsipas, Gojowczyk, Ramos, Struff, Cilic, Sinner, Tiafoe, Djokovic, Sinner, Zverev, Tiafoe, and now Sinner make 13 wins to only the loss to Berrettini.
Proud and tortured to say I could reel those names off the done (apart from looking up Gojowczyk's spelling)
Wonderful writeup as always!! I'm sure doctoral theses can be written up on this single epic match.
My takeaways were serve related:
1) Sinner's first serve let him down quite a bit, especially during the pressure moments. There were entire games where he failed to make a single first serve. It all came together the last couple of games in the fifth (I have heard that a tired arm sometimes helps you out with the serve), and I think he still served well in the final tiebreak.
2) Sinner's second serve has little variation. It did a great job of pushing Carlos back, but it's it too neutral? He may have had just two doubles for the entire tournament, but it seemed like he never tried to place it at all. Alcaraz had more doubles, but he was more aggressive with his second and I think that made a difference.
This is their first major final meeting and I wonder where this rivalry will end up. Will it be more like a Sampras-Agassi (not stylistically but numbers wise, where Andre was always behind), or more like the Big 3 (fairly even distribution)? As amazing as Carlos is, his penchant for everything all at once - entertainment/flair/win - my guess is that, health notwithstanding, Jannik will have the numbers edge ten years from now. Both guys impressed the hell out of me with this match. Like you I was certain the fifth set would be something like 6-2 Carlos. In fact, the more I think about it, I'm more impressed with Sinner than Carlos.
And as far as the 0-40/3 match points go...are people forgetting that Carlos was serving? This wasn't 40-15 Fed/Novak SW19. Of course one point could end the match, but I had a feeling Carlos would at least bring it back to deuce. He's too good not to. The bigger missed opportunity was Sinner getting broken on his serve on the next game, but that also wasn't that surprising. I've seen enough matches where the exact same scenario played out. If Sinner hadn't had those match points, he may as well have closed out the match.
2) agreed in that he doesn't have the high bouncing kicker like Carlos, but he did go much bigger on some break points when Carlos stood in (first game of the match, for example)
I still think Sinner has the edge in a long-term H2H view, and that the current skew is both (a) variance/luck (many with match points to sinner); and (b) surface skew -- the last fast court matchup they had was Miami 23 which Sinner won. Only one of their last 7 matches!
Watching the game from the stands, I did find Sinner's serve much better than Alcaraz's with the spots : consistently close to the lines and fast.
Alcaraz was serving very often 30-50 cm inside the box without such good spots but with a lot of speed. Insane level of serve (especially compared to the Ladies' Double final from the morning) with high speed on the 2nd.
It seemed to me that Alcaraz performed closer to its ceilling than Sinner who still is grooming himself back to match fitness.
I do think that Alcaraz is having a "grace phase" with his matches against Sinner and that the H2H is skewed versus their point-by-point performance. With another 20 duels, there ought to be a balancing occurring into Sinner's favor.
OMG, you lucky dog!! I can't even imagine what it must've been like to be there in person. The comparison to Errani's serve (she hit at least one underhand!) must've been like high arc softball pitch vs. Verlander fastball. 😁
Errani's first underhand serve f**** up the radar that yielded a 127 km/h, then 131 km/h afterwards (Usually her serve was between 95 and 125 km/h with the upper motion ;) ).
Nonetheless Errani had plenty of amazing shots during the final with incredible reflexes and softs hands (notwithstanding all the tactical aspects that she was in charge in the duet).
To be there in person had been fabulous even though I have been bothered by the public in the 4th and 5th set that took excessively its side for Alcaraz (but I was 200% behind Sinner who I really like, I don't like anything Spanish since my origin are Basque/Dutch ahah).
I can also confirm that we gasped many times with the power of some shots. Alcaraz has a specific sound to its strokes. Sinner's ball is so sizzling, barely any noise and yet it is sometimes nuclear as well.
I watched the last set of the women's doubles final, Errani's doubles IQ is off the charts. She's almost like a puppet master, pulling the net player to whatever direction she wants. Totally a chess player while Krunic/Danilina playing checkers. I felt bad for Krunic, I've admired her for so long - so diminutive yet I remember her playing singles and smoking her serves to 110mph+. She had a bad game here.
Carlos will always get the love. I really love them both, I was pulling for Sinner because I thought he would ultimately lose. But I do think he will come back stronger. I didn't realize that had he won RG, he would be going for a non-calendar GS at Wimby. Already toying with history, these two.
This is such wonderful analysis. I am especially glad to see that you talk about Sinner's serve. I watched the entire match, and my analysis was that his serve was the largest contributor to his loss. He was constantly in danger of being broken because his first-serve percentage was abysmal. It seems that he almost always hits flat first serves; does he need to employ a kick serve? Does he need to change his motion? Why has he served so badly against Alcaraz in their last six matches?
I think he tried harder against the elite players which explained the dip. However, his normal % is low to begin with! We need Goran to do a consultation...or Djokovic being his new coach if timing works out?????
In fact, Sinner reached break point on more games than the opposite. They are both so good at return, on a slow surface that holding serve has been a struggle for both. The 12 min first service game from Sinner is biaising your view : Alcaraz had to grind on both serves even though he served more 1st.
Sinner was much more solid behind his 1st that he didn't pass enough.
I dunno how I am able to actually concentrate on work this week after watching a match like that.
Small thoughts - Sinner's Return of Serve was so good in that match - I thought he was doing both - crushing the return on the Ad side as well as, at times looping it with his BH, was very interesting.
I do think Sinner blinked though - Second serve returns missed at 5-3 40-15 in the 4th set and at 2-4 in the 4th set TB. He makes those, who knows... what happens
Fun fact: From 2-3 to 5-3 40-0, Sinner had won 14 out of the 15 points. From then on, Alcaraz won 13 out of 14 points. Absolutely insane that their most dominant stretches came right next to each other.
Surely we are expecting another final between these two in about 5 weeks time?
I am still thinking about this final. The way Sinner stretched his body and mind to the limits to come back from 3-5 to 6-5. And then the way Alcaraz survived The 12th Game (yes, I am going to emphasise that game because it was that good)... I dunno how these two can better it in the future.
I am *really* looking forward to a potential Wimbledon Final. Hope nobody messes it up (Mr. Djokovic, please don't ruin it now).
In a strange way, watching this kind of match makes me not as excited for a lot of the other parts of the tennis season. I'm a Tennis TV subscriber and watch a decent amount of 250/500/1000 matches. Usually I'll watch a couple of match replays each week, especially semis and finals.
But after seeing this, I'm not really motivated to watch the 250 grass tourneys this week. Usually I would be excited to watch grass court tennis. Maybe part of the reason is because I just watched a lot during Roland Garros and need a break. A good test will be Halle and Queen's Club the week after. But overall I keep thinking "I'm not going to see a great tennis match like this until maybe Wimbledon"
I would really love to see what improvements these 2 players can make anymore? I still think carlos can find that lockdown mode with his attack regularly as supposed to clutch moments now
Sinner: serve %, north-south movement and volleys (imagine if he had snuck in after that return at 5-6 30-30 in the fifth set and taken Alcaraz's defensive slice as a swing volley forehand? That's what Carlos would do), drop shot on forehand
Alcaraz: first-serve accuracy, forehand pace absorption, shot selection and rally patience
About the "hand" strokes, Sinner outdid himself on Sunday : he used to be very rough but that supreme half-volley is as crafty as Alcaral could ever do and he did stunning volleys as well.
He has been steadily working the forecourt strokes over the last couples of season with consistent improvement and it shone yesterday. He is not a Zverev anymore who is the tiniest dog in the "small play"
You were the only person who discussed the technical differences and I agree with you 100% regarding serves and returns. Sinner has improved on returning Alcaraz's second serves even compared to Rome, but he is not there all the time. More critically, Sinner's own first serve consistency is lacking.
I almost feel like he should invite Goran or whoever fixed Sabalenka's serves to help temporarily. There must be some technical reasons behind it.
Would you care to analyze his serves and point out the flaws? Or is it simply that he hasn't got enough court hours to get there - after all, a great serve takes many years to develop and he was certainly a later starter.
Finally, Jannik has also improved his physical conditioning as well as his volleys and drop shots. It's actually more astonishing to watch him develop since his break out match with Novak in 2022 Wimbledon. The speed is almost like a junior player's development. I hope his next coach, after Darren, will continue to help him to improve.
I don't see a flaw in his serve, but I haven't scrutinised it. It looks technically great to me. And I think Vagnozzi is the more technical of the two, whereas Darren is a little more the intangibles – a media front, old wise head with deep experience of big matches. A little more 30 000 feet, a little less nitty gritty technique stuff
did not watch the match, only highlights, so appreciate this review Hugh. I can't believe the level of tennis they bring. I'm lucky enough to have watched the big three since 2004, and these two feel cut from different cloth. i hope sinner comes back strong at Wimbledon, he won a lot of points for how gracious he was in defeat, that is not easy.
Hats off to becoming excited about a rivalry again! I like the unevenness of the review. More fun and less technical! Is Draper about to be inspired like Nole was in 2008 and make a leap into one of the next finals? Thanks for all your thoughts!
Thanks Arturo! I think Draper is the most likely contender. Has a complete game, big serve, movement and fitness improving. I think US Open is his best bet, with the higher bounce and lack of UK pressure/media focus
And a lefty! I couldn’t help but think during the RG final about the lack of some clear difference between Sinner and Alcaraz. Left vs right, one vs two. Most great rivalries in tennis have that. So Draper is a natural rival here. Wimbledon might also suit him. Of course, the UK Media is tough. Here is hoping!
Does anyone else think Sinner's return position, especially on the AD side, was too close to the baseline on pressure points (i.e. one of the match points) and could have benefited by standing further back on some key points? Alcaraz changed is return position based on the state of the game, break points, etc but I felt that Sinner always tried to go for the aggressive return position.
I feel like whenever Sinner went deep, Alcaraz was loving the clear kick-wide option. It was one of the few times he would serve-volley too. Hard to be critical of that tactic as it got him all the way to triple match point!
That forehand squash shot at 5-6 30-30 was insane. HOW did he get it, HOW did it get enough air that Sinner had to check and reverse, HOW did he have the certainty to hit the crosscourt backhand winner. Without that forehand, if it goes past him or he gets it and it goes out, he's matchpoint down again, and in the event Sinner crushed the return so it went back to deuce but it could have been..
The one stat that I pulled out was points won on second serve, which I think is always telling: I've always believed that you can predict the winner of a match going in by their tournament-so-far percentage won on second serve return.
The RG stats machine said it went like this:
• points total won on return: Sinner 40% (71/194), Alcaraz 39% (75/191)
• points won on return of first serve: Sinner 37% (42/113), Alcaraz 30% (31/103)
• points won on return of 2nd serve: Sinner 43% (35/81), Alcaraz 50% (44/88) - the only stat on return of serve where he's ahead.
Which I'll take as confirmation of my belief!
And Sinner's serve deserted him in some key moments. Only made 2/5 when serving for it at 5-4 I think
Was patiently waiting for your take on this match :) I'm well on the side thinking 'Sinner is the better overall player, but he has a matchup issue with Alcaraz'. For a short (well, not that short) it looked like he figured it out, but Alcaraz simply has something no one on tour has and that's the combination of almost being able to go bomb-to-bomb with Sinner for certain stretches, with an unrivaled movement and shot arsenal. It's no match for Rune (I still believe in him) at least :) Great read, as always
I am not sure SInner is the better player, as much as Sinner is the more stable and consistent player. His dips are never as bad as Alcaraz's, but his highs are also never as high as Alcaraz's. The thing that i simultaneously like and dislike about Sinner's game. under his coach Darren Cahill, is that cahill has completely changed Sinner's game, from a very powerful and explosive game, from both the FH and BH, to a now very consistent, low risk, just-putting-the-ball-back-deep game. This has allowed Sinner to consistently reach the latter stages of tournaments, but against his biggest nemesis Alcaraz, he cant seem to access his power game as comfortably as before, and I really do think that's one of the reasons he cant seem to win against Alcaraz these days. Sinner's floor is higher now but his ceiling is lower now
I think Sinner's losses have mainly been because of his serve/poor 1st %. I think the groundstrokes are incredible. Their H2H could still simply be variance and/or surface skew as well. They haven't played much on faster hard courts lately (latest one was Miami 23 and Sinner won). Here at RG, in evening clay, Sinner still looked like he rushed Alcaraz. That's a scary prospect for the faster slams on the calendar
This is i have also noted, especially during this FO classic. SInner couldnt put in a first serve if his life depended on it. Poor first serve percentage
Interesting. Do you think before that change his game was more suitable to handle Alcaraz?
Yes i think so. He had a nice balance of staying consistent, but also being aggressive and constantly put pressure on Alcaraz. Now, if Alcaraz can vary his shots and doesnt make errors while attacking, he can beat Sinner consistently, as he has showed till now
To me, the last string of matchs is variance excessively leaning in Alcaraz favor. Point-by-point basis, they are even, like really even with maybe a very tiny edge to Sinner thanks to its better serve (Dominance ratio is 1.01).
When you go to Tennis Abstract, you find out that the H2H gives the following metrics :
Dominance ratio is 1.01 for Alcaraz (basically they win the same amount of point out of the other's serve) but 64% win in TB.
Also in average 1st serve in % for Sinner dropped much more than Alcaraz's versus their season's performance.
But indeed, it seems that Alcaraz is able to create more opportunities to break. He seems like he is able to string together longer dominant sequences than Sinner's but I don't see it sustainable. When you watch the matches, he still is more "lucky" in the clutch than Sinner with god mode sequences.
One day-after thought: I think yesterday showed the true payoff of years of "My Way" showboating tennis by Carlitos. In any given point, going for weird shots, risky plays and almost hopeless draining sprints is often point-suboptimal and/or match-suboptimal. But then you arrive to a match that is as difficult and as meaningful as a Roland Garros final against your generational rival with a well-tuned game, and you get two substantial and even decisive power-ups. In first place, when your time is running out you receive the critical support of the crowd that you have rightfully earned by constantly choosing to do those flamboyant things not because they are easy, but precisely because they are hard. And in second place, when you're against the strings in the highest of stakes and only the impossible and the exceptional will do, you will believe that there is always a chance of finding a way forward, because you've already done it over and over after years of living and thriving on the edge. This philosophy is, in this way, the exact opposite of Zverev's pachyderm playstyle, which by grazing comfortable points and wins deprives the player of opportunities to develop competence and confidence in the exceptional situations that can define a career. As you wrote in the past, there are Federer echoes in My Way tennis - arguably the most vulnerable game in the Big 3/4, and yet maybe the most appreciated precisely because of its embrace of risk and vulnerability. In the end, tennis will never desert those who believe in tennis.
Really good points. The cheers do matter, especially in the latter stages of a tournament when everyone, even the superhuman like these two, are running on fumes.
The question is, will flamboyance/riskier shots expire before steadiness? My guess is yes, but Carlos has at least another 5-6 years (in baseball at least, year 26/27 is your peak, where physical athletics and gameplay experience reach their zenith), so we will all be treated to mind-blowing shots for years to come.
I hope both stay healthy and hungry. You just never know what the future holds.
Oh, I feel that the Italian will resume claiming his share Sinner rather than later; he has all but closed their clay gap quite fast already, it seems, and even better chances await him this season and the next ones. Magic cannot win you a Slam on its own, but it can certainly provide a small edge, and yesterday that X factor was the element that may have tipped the scales on an otherwise fairly even match.
Honestly Alcaraz has all the craftyness and skills in the world but on Sunday, Sinner showed some exceptional shots as well such as that behind the leg half-volley improvisation that is Fed/Alcaraz level of skill.
A couple volleys on nuclear forehands cut my breath as well in the stadium.
Furthermore, that on-the-run FH is another masterpiece of Sinner : the slow-mo or de visu shows a perfect centering of the racquet and the ball is an absolute missile. And yet, Sinner is able to recover very quickly to go the other way : that perfect combination of all the moving parts is something incredible as well.
Overall, the ball-striking of Sinner is another level versus Alcaraz when you watch the slow-motions : Sinner's ball is almost everytime perfectly clean whereas Alcaraz enjoys much more the tolerance of the strings. The sound of their ball is not the same and Alcaraz's is much more noisy live.
The thing that impressed me the most about Sinner's FH is the stability and full-body control on the slide, he's skiing with the lower body while providing a stable base for accelerating and maintaining control of the shot, there's obviously some power / control loss when compared to a static stroke but not as much as most of the field. In contrast, Carlitos usually relies more on rolled forehands when he cannot set his feet, which is biomechanically sound but a lower margin shot (particularly since he hits very fast, but the path is too sharp in that situation, so sometimes he loses directional control or shanks or catches it too low on the racquet). If I was on Carlos' team I'd try to fetch enough tape and compare it with Nadal's, who had a firmer grasp of that swing pattern (though there are also elements of racket setup and risk tolerance / aggresiveness that make the comparison harder).
I wouldn't put that much stock on the impact sound - it depends a lot on racket specs, strings, and string tension, not just the technique.
About the ball striking, I have always been baffled by Nadal's slow-motions where it is quite often not centered (I have a vivid memory of a running forehand at FO 2017 final vs Wavrinka where it is was hit very close to the frame and yet it was a banana forehand).
On a lesser level, Alcaraz doesn't hit that clean. On the other hand, Sinner's running forehand is just dead center, almost everytime.
I may be really wrong but I dare say that Sinner's ball striking is like Agassi's (very clean) while Alcaraz is more similar to Sampras's (an incredible athletic gift muscling the ball out of the string).
I am fine saying that I love 90's tennis due to the bonus of clean hit : you get immediately when the ball is not centered. Afterwards, the bonus is not that striking anymore and the improvement in movements made tennis sometimes too close to attrition war.
To be honest, I'm not sure if hitting outside the "center" in the transverse plane on a modern topspin groundstroke is by itself a technical deficiency. I can't find any discussion of this but my feeling was that players (or at least myself) unconsciously develop some bias towards hitting on the trailing half of the racquet, based on 1) framing (shanking) with the trailing edge being more common 2) the racquet often flipping forward on contact, signalling a below-center (in the court reference system) impact* and 3) sometimes showing up on side-view shots (e.g. here's https://imgur.com/a/hlmX5ZZ the first forehand I grabbed from a slow-motion video from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roc4Yao6iqE ). I think it would make sense for the PoV of physics (the forward flip adding spin as the racquet "brushes up" the ball to a greater extent), but again maybe it's just my perception.
Thank you for your comment but it is far beyond my level of command of both English and tennis to have anything sound to reply !
From the US perspective, I'd like to tip the cap to TNT/Warner/Max for outstanding coverage. Sure, the commentary was WAY too US-centric, and didn't utilize Petchy enough, but they showed every match. Every match was available for replay. And they employed House of Highlights and Bleacher Report YouTube channels for extended highlights and analysis.
A report from the comment I put on the previous article. Please forgive my poor English, I am French afterall !
A small summary of the final that I was lucky enough to assist live in the stands.
First of all, a small comment about the public : overall very fair-play, no booing nor insults save for the 4th set where it was excessively pushing for Alcaraz with plenty of noise made between serves and clapping of 2nd serves by Sinner.
According to Infosys, the breakdown couldn't be more equal (193 vs 192 pts in favor of Sinner), they served 191 vs 194 times as well. Equal performance on return (Sinner won 2 out of 3 "extra points" from Alcaraz).
The difference lies in the clutch, because for the same number of breaks (7), Sinner had 12 games on the line versus 9 for Alcaraz. Likewise, Alcaraz won many more points on the tie-breaks.
It is pattern that tends to sediment in that H2H : very equal on a point-by-point basis (even a slight edge for Sinner) but Alcaraz is overperforming in the clutch. If you follow the in-depth data analysis from Jeff Sackmann, it cannot last forever and Sinner is bound to have a return of sorts in the future.
However, this match, it is surprising to see how strikingly they built on their strenght. The rally length analysis gives a big edge to Sinner for short rallyes (less than 4 shots, +13), meanwhile midle-menght (5-9) & long rallyes yielded -13 altogether. The extra ace by Sinner gives the point edge.
So basically, Sinner is better at "match tennis" meanwhile Alcaraz is better at "game tennis". The visual impression from the stands confirms this as Sinner is an exceptionnal spot server, reaching within 10 cm from the lines. I cannot also emphasize enough the quality of their 2nd serves, routinely over 100 mph (160+ Km/h for us internationalist measurement system users) especially Sinners.
Alcaraz finally had a fairly high 1st serve rate but it is its weakest shot (too often 50+cm within the box) while Sinner struggled with his 1st rate.
Both incredible returners overall, seldom being aced, killing any 2nd lower than 150 km/h middle-box deliveries.
Sinner still has more upside in my opinion than Alcaraz who outplayed himself during the whole match. Sinner delivered a less stellar performance than against Djokovic in my impression.
Must have been ain incredible experience to be there live Sdl
I have been a regular at RG for the last 25 years but 1st final. But as you know, real gourmets prefer the 3rd & 4th round to go the Slams. The insider tip is court 14 which very often has the best planning during the 1st week for a knowledgeable follower (ideal mix of prospects, old stars, darlings and potential tight matches).
Philippe Chatrier is honestly the worse with only 3 matches due to the night session, rarely with exciting matchs due to the one-sided opposition or the Frenchmen with their bland games.
Suzanne Lenglen is the ideal size (not too big) and it is easy to play the French game of sneaking our way down to the court. In 2002 I eventually reached the ground for the match between Serena and Patrova for example !
Thank you so much for sharing. You are so lucky to watch in person. What a treat!
What do you mean by match and game tennis here?
"match tennis" : you have to serve and return
"game tennis" (or playful tennis) : you just trade groundstroke.
Hi Hugh,
An excellent analysis as always, one that felt more sentimental/love of the game than the others, which makes sense : as you said, this match defies analysis.
For as good as Sinner's running FH is and as been in this match (certainly much better than it was in Rome), I still think this shot (as well as, and maybe more, the FH from set positions) is the one that "cost" him this match. I think Gill Gross did a great job breaking down how Carlos won the FH battle, especially using width.
I know you've gotten to like Jannik's merry go-round setup especially for how compact it is and its relative lack of moving parts, but on clay especially, I'd still take Carlos's ferris wheel. It's the best on fast HC, but when faced with wide balls and height, I still think the laggy parts of the setup from your original DoF theory offer some vulnerabilities when it comes to control. Alcaraz has running FH vulnerability too, but for other technical reasons (initial racket inverted). Two great FHs, but maybe just a tad worse than the ideal modern FH theory.
I'm going to go back over this match with a forehand focus, and one thing I have long suspected with Sinner's forehand is that when he is moving to his right and plays it open-stance, THAT is when it is most vulnerable. He hits it better on the dead-run/with the left leg crossing over, as it steadies his upper body more. Will see if there is something that bleeds through when I re-watch with that focus.
I would say Sinner’s FH « vulnerabilities » were especially apparent from set 3 onwards, and particularly on pressure points. 2 errors in the 3-5 game with MPs for example
I observed that his legs were partly taken out...his energy level happened to dip at the worst time. There is a bit of luck...almost like not meant to be...
Been waiting for this since the final ended, and it didn't disappoint.
Btw unless I'm mistaken he's now 13-1 in 5 setters. Uchiyama, Tsitsipas, Gojowczyk, Ramos, Struff, Cilic, Sinner, Tiafoe, Djokovic, Sinner, Zverev, Tiafoe, and now Sinner make 13 wins to only the loss to Berrettini.
Proud and tortured to say I could reel those names off the done (apart from looking up Gojowczyk's spelling)
You are correct, 13-1 after that! Thanks for picking up on that UE from me.
Wonderful writeup as always!! I'm sure doctoral theses can be written up on this single epic match.
My takeaways were serve related:
1) Sinner's first serve let him down quite a bit, especially during the pressure moments. There were entire games where he failed to make a single first serve. It all came together the last couple of games in the fifth (I have heard that a tired arm sometimes helps you out with the serve), and I think he still served well in the final tiebreak.
2) Sinner's second serve has little variation. It did a great job of pushing Carlos back, but it's it too neutral? He may have had just two doubles for the entire tournament, but it seemed like he never tried to place it at all. Alcaraz had more doubles, but he was more aggressive with his second and I think that made a difference.
This is their first major final meeting and I wonder where this rivalry will end up. Will it be more like a Sampras-Agassi (not stylistically but numbers wise, where Andre was always behind), or more like the Big 3 (fairly even distribution)? As amazing as Carlos is, his penchant for everything all at once - entertainment/flair/win - my guess is that, health notwithstanding, Jannik will have the numbers edge ten years from now. Both guys impressed the hell out of me with this match. Like you I was certain the fifth set would be something like 6-2 Carlos. In fact, the more I think about it, I'm more impressed with Sinner than Carlos.
And as far as the 0-40/3 match points go...are people forgetting that Carlos was serving? This wasn't 40-15 Fed/Novak SW19. Of course one point could end the match, but I had a feeling Carlos would at least bring it back to deuce. He's too good not to. The bigger missed opportunity was Sinner getting broken on his serve on the next game, but that also wasn't that surprising. I've seen enough matches where the exact same scenario played out. If Sinner hadn't had those match points, he may as well have closed out the match.
1) agreed
2) agreed in that he doesn't have the high bouncing kicker like Carlos, but he did go much bigger on some break points when Carlos stood in (first game of the match, for example)
I still think Sinner has the edge in a long-term H2H view, and that the current skew is both (a) variance/luck (many with match points to sinner); and (b) surface skew -- the last fast court matchup they had was Miami 23 which Sinner won. Only one of their last 7 matches!
Watching the game from the stands, I did find Sinner's serve much better than Alcaraz's with the spots : consistently close to the lines and fast.
Alcaraz was serving very often 30-50 cm inside the box without such good spots but with a lot of speed. Insane level of serve (especially compared to the Ladies' Double final from the morning) with high speed on the 2nd.
It seemed to me that Alcaraz performed closer to its ceilling than Sinner who still is grooming himself back to match fitness.
I do think that Alcaraz is having a "grace phase" with his matches against Sinner and that the H2H is skewed versus their point-by-point performance. With another 20 duels, there ought to be a balancing occurring into Sinner's favor.
OMG, you lucky dog!! I can't even imagine what it must've been like to be there in person. The comparison to Errani's serve (she hit at least one underhand!) must've been like high arc softball pitch vs. Verlander fastball. 😁
Errani's first underhand serve f**** up the radar that yielded a 127 km/h, then 131 km/h afterwards (Usually her serve was between 95 and 125 km/h with the upper motion ;) ).
Nonetheless Errani had plenty of amazing shots during the final with incredible reflexes and softs hands (notwithstanding all the tactical aspects that she was in charge in the duet).
To be there in person had been fabulous even though I have been bothered by the public in the 4th and 5th set that took excessively its side for Alcaraz (but I was 200% behind Sinner who I really like, I don't like anything Spanish since my origin are Basque/Dutch ahah).
I can also confirm that we gasped many times with the power of some shots. Alcaraz has a specific sound to its strokes. Sinner's ball is so sizzling, barely any noise and yet it is sometimes nuclear as well.
I watched the last set of the women's doubles final, Errani's doubles IQ is off the charts. She's almost like a puppet master, pulling the net player to whatever direction she wants. Totally a chess player while Krunic/Danilina playing checkers. I felt bad for Krunic, I've admired her for so long - so diminutive yet I remember her playing singles and smoking her serves to 110mph+. She had a bad game here.
Carlos will always get the love. I really love them both, I was pulling for Sinner because I thought he would ultimately lose. But I do think he will come back stronger. I didn't realize that had he won RG, he would be going for a non-calendar GS at Wimby. Already toying with history, these two.
This is such wonderful analysis. I am especially glad to see that you talk about Sinner's serve. I watched the entire match, and my analysis was that his serve was the largest contributor to his loss. He was constantly in danger of being broken because his first-serve percentage was abysmal. It seems that he almost always hits flat first serves; does he need to employ a kick serve? Does he need to change his motion? Why has he served so badly against Alcaraz in their last six matches?
No idea why his % is markedly lower against Carlos but I agree that is what has killed his lack of wins against the Spaniard recently!
I think he tried harder against the elite players which explained the dip. However, his normal % is low to begin with! We need Goran to do a consultation...or Djokovic being his new coach if timing works out?????
In fact, Sinner reached break point on more games than the opposite. They are both so good at return, on a slow surface that holding serve has been a struggle for both. The 12 min first service game from Sinner is biaising your view : Alcaraz had to grind on both serves even though he served more 1st.
Sinner was much more solid behind his 1st that he didn't pass enough.
I dunno how I am able to actually concentrate on work this week after watching a match like that.
Small thoughts - Sinner's Return of Serve was so good in that match - I thought he was doing both - crushing the return on the Ad side as well as, at times looping it with his BH, was very interesting.
I do think Sinner blinked though - Second serve returns missed at 5-3 40-15 in the 4th set and at 2-4 in the 4th set TB. He makes those, who knows... what happens
Fun fact: From 2-3 to 5-3 40-0, Sinner had won 14 out of the 15 points. From then on, Alcaraz won 13 out of 14 points. Absolutely insane that their most dominant stretches came right next to each other.
Surely we are expecting another final between these two in about 5 weeks time?
imcredible momentum swings. I would LOVE a wimbledon final. Feels like only one or two guys could stop that from happening
I am still thinking about this final. The way Sinner stretched his body and mind to the limits to come back from 3-5 to 6-5. And then the way Alcaraz survived The 12th Game (yes, I am going to emphasise that game because it was that good)... I dunno how these two can better it in the future.
I am *really* looking forward to a potential Wimbledon Final. Hope nobody messes it up (Mr. Djokovic, please don't ruin it now).
In a strange way, watching this kind of match makes me not as excited for a lot of the other parts of the tennis season. I'm a Tennis TV subscriber and watch a decent amount of 250/500/1000 matches. Usually I'll watch a couple of match replays each week, especially semis and finals.
But after seeing this, I'm not really motivated to watch the 250 grass tourneys this week. Usually I would be excited to watch grass court tennis. Maybe part of the reason is because I just watched a lot during Roland Garros and need a break. A good test will be Halle and Queen's Club the week after. But overall I keep thinking "I'm not going to see a great tennis match like this until maybe Wimbledon"
I get that. And no, you won't see a match like that until maybe a Wimbledon semi or final!
I would really love to see what improvements these 2 players can make anymore? I still think carlos can find that lockdown mode with his attack regularly as supposed to clutch moments now
Sinner: serve %, north-south movement and volleys (imagine if he had snuck in after that return at 5-6 30-30 in the fifth set and taken Alcaraz's defensive slice as a swing volley forehand? That's what Carlos would do), drop shot on forehand
Alcaraz: first-serve accuracy, forehand pace absorption, shot selection and rally patience
About the "hand" strokes, Sinner outdid himself on Sunday : he used to be very rough but that supreme half-volley is as crafty as Alcaral could ever do and he did stunning volleys as well.
He has been steadily working the forecourt strokes over the last couples of season with consistent improvement and it shone yesterday. He is not a Zverev anymore who is the tiniest dog in the "small play"
You were the only person who discussed the technical differences and I agree with you 100% regarding serves and returns. Sinner has improved on returning Alcaraz's second serves even compared to Rome, but he is not there all the time. More critically, Sinner's own first serve consistency is lacking.
I almost feel like he should invite Goran or whoever fixed Sabalenka's serves to help temporarily. There must be some technical reasons behind it.
Would you care to analyze his serves and point out the flaws? Or is it simply that he hasn't got enough court hours to get there - after all, a great serve takes many years to develop and he was certainly a later starter.
Finally, Jannik has also improved his physical conditioning as well as his volleys and drop shots. It's actually more astonishing to watch him develop since his break out match with Novak in 2022 Wimbledon. The speed is almost like a junior player's development. I hope his next coach, after Darren, will continue to help him to improve.
I don't see a flaw in his serve, but I haven't scrutinised it. It looks technically great to me. And I think Vagnozzi is the more technical of the two, whereas Darren is a little more the intangibles – a media front, old wise head with deep experience of big matches. A little more 30 000 feet, a little less nitty gritty technique stuff
It is unusual in the sense that he drags his back foot up before beginning to move his serving arm.
Should he go back to using platform stance?
i don't think so. He serves better now than he ever did, and the Carlos numbers might still just be variance
did not watch the match, only highlights, so appreciate this review Hugh. I can't believe the level of tennis they bring. I'm lucky enough to have watched the big three since 2004, and these two feel cut from different cloth. i hope sinner comes back strong at Wimbledon, he won a lot of points for how gracious he was in defeat, that is not easy.
Hats off to becoming excited about a rivalry again! I like the unevenness of the review. More fun and less technical! Is Draper about to be inspired like Nole was in 2008 and make a leap into one of the next finals? Thanks for all your thoughts!
Thanks Arturo! I think Draper is the most likely contender. Has a complete game, big serve, movement and fitness improving. I think US Open is his best bet, with the higher bounce and lack of UK pressure/media focus
And a lefty! I couldn’t help but think during the RG final about the lack of some clear difference between Sinner and Alcaraz. Left vs right, one vs two. Most great rivalries in tennis have that. So Draper is a natural rival here. Wimbledon might also suit him. Of course, the UK Media is tough. Here is hoping!
Does anyone else think Sinner's return position, especially on the AD side, was too close to the baseline on pressure points (i.e. one of the match points) and could have benefited by standing further back on some key points? Alcaraz changed is return position based on the state of the game, break points, etc but I felt that Sinner always tried to go for the aggressive return position.
I feel like whenever Sinner went deep, Alcaraz was loving the clear kick-wide option. It was one of the few times he would serve-volley too. Hard to be critical of that tactic as it got him all the way to triple match point!