Rank Alcaraz v. Sinner Roland Garros Final 2025 in terms of ATG men's matches

[Fiero425]

Are you telling me that there were ATP tournaments on carpet until 2009? If so, which were the tournaments?

Do your own research!

 

[DarthFed]

Maybe it's all those years (yes, "years,") of listening to @DarthFed and a few others telling us how "terrible" Roger was in that match, which was patently ridiculous. But I did go out for a run at the rain delay that came with Roger serving for it 5-4 in the 3rd, and thought, I'd better hurry up, because if Rafa broke back, this could be over quickly. All that said, though, the tennis was sublime. Enough so that the NYTimes put the match on the front page of the print edition. Not the front page of the Sports section, either. The legit front page, below the fold. And that match did have lots of intangibles. Including a much bigger rivalry, with very committed fan bases.

Totally agree about AO 2012. Mostly, it was just long.

Oh I will still hold to the fact that the match didn’t age that well quality-wise. We saw Roger rather often play better than that on grass even as a geriatric. He broke the weak Nadal serve once out of 30 games that day. He was lackluster and weak as hell for the first 2 sets and then showed up. Then after seemingly grabbing all momentum it was a fairly uninspiring 5th set, barely ever threatened the weak Nadal serve. If the situation was reversed with Roger losing two tiebreaker sets in a row to Nadal or Djokovic those guys would have blown the doors off him in the 5th.

All that said it was a great match of course, probably the greatest given the circumstances, players, drama, etc. But Roger won 65 straight on grass for a reason. He was a far better player on grass than Nadal and the matchup issues on clay and even hardcourt were not as present. Meaning Roger playing up to his ability beats Nadal on grass. He played most of that match like a mental midget and ended up paying in the end. 2019 was a great match too…quality from Novak was trash and Roger was about average if that and was ancient and could barely move. And he was extra mentally fragile that day or it’d have been a blowout given Novak’s level. All of that led to a classic match as well, sometimes it just works out that way in tennis.

 

[atttomole]

Oh I will still hold to the fact that the match didn’t age that well quality-wise. We saw Roger rather often play better than that on grass even as a geriatric. He broke the weak Nadal serve once out of 30 games that day. He was lackluster and weak as hell for the first 2 sets and then showed up. Then after seemingly grabbing all momentum it was a fairly uninspiring 5th set, barely ever threatened the weak Nadal serve. If the situation was reversed with Roger losing two tiebreaker sets in a row to Nadal or Djokovic those guys would have blown the doors off him in the 5th.

All that said it was a great match of course, probably the greatest given the circumstances, players, drama, etc. But Roger won 65 straight on grass for a reason. He was a far better player on grass than Nadal and the matchup issues on clay and even hardcourt were not as present. Meaning Roger playing up to his ability beats Nadal on grass. He played most of that match like a mental midget and ended up paying in the end. 2019 was a great match too…quality from Novak was trash and Roger was about average if that and was ancient and could barely move. And he was extra mentally fragile that day or it’d have been a blowout given Novak’s level. All of that led to a classic match as well, sometimes it just works out that way in tennis.

I can’t believe my eyes!!

 

[Moxie]

Oh I will still hold to the fact that the match didn’t age that well quality-wise. We saw Roger rather often play better than that on grass even as a geriatric. He broke the weak Nadal serve once out of 30 games that day. He was lackluster and weak as hell for the first 2 sets and then showed up. Then after seemingly grabbing all momentum it was a fairly uninspiring 5th set, barely ever threatened the weak Nadal serve. If the situation was reversed with Roger losing two tiebreaker sets in a row to Nadal or Djokovic those guys would have blown the doors off him in the 5th.

All that said it was a great match of course, probably the greatest given the circumstances, players, drama, etc. But Roger won 65 straight on grass for a reason. He was a far better player on grass than Nadal and the matchup issues on clay and even hardcourt were not as present. Meaning Roger playing up to his ability beats Nadal on grass. He played most of that match like a mental midget and ended up paying in the end. 2019 was a great match too…quality from Novak was trash and Roger was about average if that and was ancient and could barely move. And he was extra mentally fragile that day or it’d have been a blowout given Novak’s level. All of that led to a classic match as well, sometimes it just works out that way in tennis.

Darth! I love that you couldn't resist the prod back to the old debate. Come back to tennis. There are youngsters to like. Or, if not, I promise to debate the old wars with you, ad nauseam.

So, having never rewatched that match, by your own previous admission, you're saying you have rewatched it fairly recently? I find that hard to believe. It's long, and you hate it. Why would you? I think you've just got a narrative you tell yourself about that match, and it's hardened in stone. The tweak is that you're willing to admit it was a great match, given x-factors. But you're judging Roger on grass resume. He actually played very well throughout most of that match. He got out-played, and not because he was crap. He was 26, and still in his prime years. Nadal just got him that day, and with him playing well. He wasn't a "mental midget." Nadal had his number. You're also wrong about Nadal's serve at that point. It was much improved, with changes in technique, and is part of why he won that match.

You will always believe what you want about that match. And I know you hate that Nadal could beat Federer on grass, in his prime, but it happened. And not because Roger played poorly.

If you think that 2019 was a classic Wimbledon between Novak and Roger, how can you say they were both playing poorly. I cannot think of a classic match with either player playing poorly, throughout. For example, the 2020 US Open final, between Thiem and Zverev. They were both terrible, and it was a dreadful, boring match. There is no one in the world that would ever watch that match again. Classic matches are made by both players playing great tennis. They can't both sustain great level at the same time for 5 sets, but in a classic, they come close.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth! I love that you couldn't resist the prod back to the old debate. Come back to tennis. There are youngsters to like. Or, if not, I promise to debate the old wars with you, ad nauseam.

So, having never rewatched that match, by your own previous admission, you're saying you have rewatched it fairly recently? I find that hard to believe. It's long, and you hate it. Why would you? I think you've just got a narrative you tell yourself about that match, and it's hardened in stone. The tweak is that you're willing to admit it was a great match, given x-factors. But you're judging Roger on grass resume. He actually played very well throughout most of that match. He got out-played, and not because he was crap. He was 26, and still in his prime years. Nadal just got him that day, and with him playing well. He wasn't a "mental midget." Nadal had his number. You're also wrong about Nadal's serve at that point. It was much improved, with changes in technique, and is part of why he won that match.

You will always believe what you want about that match. And I know you hate that Nadal could beat Federer on grass, in his prime, but it happened. And not because Roger played poorly.

If you think that 2019 was a classic Wimbledon between Novak and Roger, how can you say they were both playing poorly. I cannot think of a classic match with either player playing poorly, throughout. For example, the 2020 US Open final, between Thiem and Zverev. They were both terrible, and it was a dreadful, boring match. There is no one in the world that would ever watch that match again. Classic matches are made by both players playing great tennis. They can't both sustain great level at the same time for 5 sets, but in a classic, they come close.

I have no interest in tennis though maybe Alcaraz can drag me back in. Obviously not going to be rooting for Sinner who should have been banned for at least two years.

Of course I did not rewatch that Wimbledon match but I remember it fine. Nadal’s serve had improved and was no longer WTA, but it was still not any good, particularly the 2nd serve, and Roger was gagging on those cupcakes all too often that day. Kind of tough to say any great player did well on a day they went 1-13 on break points and was up 4-1 in a must win set and dropped 5 straight games without a whimper. That more than outweighs playing well for a couple tiebreaks and then losing a somewhat long 5th set. Rafa would only win one more Wimbledon and was garbage for over a decade there including a lopsided loss to a 38 year old Federer.

Prime years is fine but Fed had literally won nothing all year aside from Halle. It was a disaster of a season and as a fan we knew his play wouldn’t be anything special that day…but didn’t need to be. You are totally right that Nadal had his number at that point in time, and since Roger was spooked he came out weak and finished weak as well. That clay season was damaging. He’d have been better off losing in the 1st round of RG. Without that massacre in RG final that year I don’t think he goes down at Wimbledon.

As for 2019, you could look at the stats and quickly be appalled with Novak. He barely had more winners than UE’s which is unheard of at Wimbledon. His return was dreadful and he was far from crisp from the baseline. Roger did only serve 62% and couldn’t buy a serve when it counted. I don’t think Roger played like crap aside from the big moments of course. Roger won like 15 more points that match despite Novak winning something like 15 more points in those 3 tiebreaks. That tells you all you need to know right there.

But with the players involved, the drama, the back and forth nature from start to finish…yes it was a classic match and the ultimate choke. I knew right then and there that Roger would end up at least a distant 2nd in majors if not 3rd. Zverev-Thiem would need to play like gods for anyone to remember a match of there’s. So that’s not a good example. Remove the names Federer, Nadal, Djokovic from the 08 and 19 finals and no one would still talk about those matches.

 

[atttomole]

I have no interest in tennis though maybe Alcaraz can drag me back in. Obviously not going to be rooting for Sinner who should have been banned for at least two years.

Of course I did not rewatch that Wimbledon match but I remember it fine. Nadal’s serve had improved and was no longer WTA, but it was still not any good, particularly the 2nd serve, and Roger was gagging on those cupcakes all too often that day. Kind of tough to say any great player did well on a day they went 1-13 on break points and was up 4-1 in a must win set and dropped 5 straight games without a whimper. That more than outweighs playing well for a couple tiebreaks and then losing a somewhat long 5th set. Rafa would only win one more Wimbledon and was garbage for over a decade there including a lopsided loss to a 38 year old Federer.

Prime years is fine but Fed had literally won nothing all year aside from Halle. It was a disaster of a season and as a fan we knew his play wouldn’t be anything special that day…but didn’t need to be. You are totally right that Nadal had his number at that point in time, and since Roger was spooked he came out weak and finished weak as well. That clay season was damaging. He’d have been better off losing in the 1st round of RG. Without that massacre in RG final that year I don’t think he goes down at Wimbledon.

As for 2019, you could look at the stats and quickly be appalled with Novak. He barely had more winners than UE’s which is unheard of at Wimbledon. His return was dreadful and he was far from crisp from the baseline. Roger did only serve 62% and couldn’t buy a serve when it counted. I don’t think Roger played like crap aside from the big moments of course. Roger won like 15 more points that match despite Novak winning something like 15 more points in those 3 tiebreaks. That tells you all you need to know right there.

But with the players involved, the drama, the back and forth nature from start to finish…yes it was a classic match and the ultimate choke. I knew right then and there that Roger would end up at least a distant 2nd in majors if not 3rd. Zverev-Thiem would need to play like gods for anyone to remember a match of there’s. So that’s not a good example. Remove the names Federer, Nadal, Djokovic from the 08 and 19 finals and no one would still talk about those matches.

I had a feeling Alcaraz was going to drag you back. He is that good!!

 

[Moxie]

I have no interest in tennis though maybe Alcaraz can drag me back in. Obviously not going to be rooting for Sinner who should have been banned for at least two years.

I hope so. He's awfully fun to watch!

Of course I did not rewatch that Wimbledon match but I remember it fine. Nadal’s serve had improved and was no longer WTA, but it was still not any good, particularly the 2nd serve, and Roger was gagging on those cupcakes all too often that day. Kind of tough to say any great player did well on a day they went 1-13 on break points and was up 4-1 in a must win set and dropped 5 straight games without a whimper. That more than outweighs playing well for a couple tiebreaks and then losing a somewhat long 5th set. Rafa would only win one more Wimbledon and was garbage for over a decade there including a lopsided loss to a 38 year old Federer.

Prime years is fine but Fed had literally won nothing all year aside from Halle. It was a disaster of a season and as a fan we knew his play wouldn’t be anything special that day…but didn’t need to be. You are totally right that Nadal had his number at that point in time, and since Roger was spooked he came out weak and finished weak as well. That clay season was damaging. He’d have been better off losing in the 1st round of RG. Without that massacre in RG final that year I don’t think he goes down at Wimbledon.

Obviously, we're never going to agree on that match, but I maintain you remember it exactly as you want to. 17 years is a long time to remember a match accurately that you've never revisited. But there is a reason that it's considered the greatest match of all time, and it's not just the side-dramas. There was a lot of great tennis played in it. You would like Roger to have played better. You'd have liked for him to have won the match, but he didn't, so you minimize the match. That's just not seeing it the way most everyone else did. You see it through fan-goggles.

Here's Roger's take, and it's not unlike ours, in terms of where we agree:

As for 2019, you could look at the stats and quickly be appalled with Novak. He barely had more winners than UE’s which is unheard of at Wimbledon. His return was dreadful and he was far from crisp from the baseline. Roger did only serve 62% and couldn’t buy a serve when it counted. I don’t think Roger played like crap aside from the big moments of course. Roger won like 15 more points that match despite Novak winning something like 15 more points in those 3 tiebreaks. That tells you all you need to know right there.

But with the players involved, the drama, the back and forth nature from start to finish…yes it was a classic match and the ultimate choke. I knew right then and there that Roger would end up at least a distant 2nd in majors if not 3rd. Zverev-Thiem would need to play like gods for anyone to remember a match of there’s. So that’s not a good example. Remove the names Federer, Nadal, Djokovic from the 08 and 19 finals and no one would still talk about those matches.

I only watched the 2019 live the one time. It doesn't seem like a match worth revisiting, maybe for the reasons you say. I don't see it named by anyone as a great classic. I am rather loathe to call something a choke, but Roger did choke with 2 Championship points, and on his serve. It was a long match, but it wasn't that great.

Come back to tennis, Darth! I think you can tell by now that you are missed around here.

 

[Fiero425]

I hope so. He's awfully fun to watch!

Obviously, we're never going to agree on that match, but I maintain you remember it exactly as you want to. 17 years is a long time to remember a match accurately that you've never revisited. But there is a reason that it's considered the greatest match of all time, and it's not just the side-dramas. There was a lot of great tennis played in it. You would like Roger to have played better. You'd have liked for him to have won the match, but he didn't, so you minimize the match. That's just not seeing it the way most everyone else did. You see it through fan-goggles.

Here's Roger's take, and it's not unlike ours, in terms of where we agree:



I only watched the 2019 live the one time. It doesn't seem like a match worth revisiting, maybe for the reasons you say. I don't see it named by anyone as a great classic. I am rather loathe to call something a choke, but Roger did choke with 2 Championship points, and on his serve. It was a long match, but it wasn't that great.

Come back to tennis, Darth! I think you can tell by now that you are missed around here.

It's unfortunate that the 2019 Wimbledon Final was not a classic; mainly being referenced due to who played! It was more about the fact it went 5 sets, there were 2 saved MP's, & ended w/ a Super TB won by Novak! It had a chance if Federer had completed the upset, but he didn't & this match was tossed into the pile w/ the other 2 matches he squandered to Novak after having 2 MP's; 2010 & 2011 USO SF's! People think I'm a Novak sychophant, but can't elevate this match to classic status!

 

[Federberg]

Oh I will still hold to the fact that the match didn’t age that well quality-wise. We saw Roger rather often play better than that on grass even as a geriatric. He broke the weak Nadal serve once out of 30 games that day. He was lackluster and weak as hell for the first 2 sets and then showed up. Then after seemingly grabbing all momentum it was a fairly uninspiring 5th set, barely ever threatened the weak Nadal serve. If the situation was reversed with Roger losing two tiebreaker sets in a row to Nadal or Djokovic those guys would have blown the doors off him in the 5th.

All that said it was a great match of course, probably the greatest given the circumstances, players, drama, etc. But Roger won 65 straight on grass for a reason. He was a far better player on grass than Nadal and the matchup issues on clay and even hardcourt were not as present. Meaning Roger playing up to his ability beats Nadal on grass. He played most of that match like a mental midget and ended up paying in the end. 2019 was a great match too…quality from Novak was trash and Roger was about average if that and was ancient and could barely move. And he was extra mentally fragile that day or it’d have been a blowout given Novak’s level. All of that led to a classic match as well, sometimes it just works out that way in tennis.

It wasn't a quality match. The last 3 sets were of stunning quality... or rather I should say 2.5 sets. The last half of the fifth was a joke. I will say this until hell freezes over, it was too dark to play in the last half. I lived a few hundred yards away, I could hear the cheering. If I had tried to drive my car without my lights on the police would have given me point penalties. I remain convinced that if they had stopped that match (as they should) and played the last few games the next day Federer would have been favourite to win.

Where I'll disagree with @DarthFed is with regards to Nadal's grass court credentials. In so far as the grass is the way it is now, certainly post- the early noughties there's simply no way not to rank Rafa as one of the best on the surface. He went to 5 finals in a row. Just like we have to describe Roger as one of the best clay courters of the era, even if he only won one. Their careers are over now. Roger left 4 or 5 slams on the table. It is what it is. I'm not going to cry about it. Frankly I doubt he cares anymore. The dude is effectively a billionaire, has a gorgeous family. I'll save the sorrow for my own a$$

PS, One of the problems with comparing eras is factoring surface changes. If they had kept that grass the same, I think Federer would have 10+ at Wimbledon... easily

 

[Moxie]

It wasn't a quality match. The last 3 sets were of stunning quality... or rather I should say 2.5 sets. The last half of the fifth was a joke. I will say this until hell freezes over, it was too dark to play in the last half. I lived a few hundred yards away, I could hear the cheering. If I had tried to drive my car without my lights on the police would have given me point penalties. I remain convinced that if they had stopped that match (as they should) and played the last few games the next day Federer would have been favourite to win.

Where I'll disagree with @DarthFed is with regards to Nadal's grass court credentials. In so far as the grass is the way it is now, certainly post- the early noughties there's simply no way not to rank Rafa as one of the best on the surface. He went to 5 finals in a row. Just like we have to describe Roger as one of the best clay courters of the era, even if he only won one. Their careers are over now. Roger left 4 or 5 slams on the table. It is what it is. I'm not going to cry about it. Frankly I doubt he cares anymore. The dude is effectively a billionaire, has a gorgeous family. I'll save the sorrow for my own a$$

PS, One of the problems with comparing eras is factoring surface changes. If they had kept that grass the same, I think Federer would have 10+ at Wimbledon... easily

Now we're really having a good old Fedal war over the old Wimbledon match. I almost mentioned your favorite line about it being too dark...because you were there, in the neighborhood...just for old time's sake. LOL. I don't really get how you said it wasn't a "quality" match, and then you say the last 3 sets (2.5) were of stunning quality. Not quite true, because there was a lot of great play throughout.

You finally admit that you think that Fed would have been favored if they'd come back to finish the next day. Obviously, you think they should have stopped it, because it's the only chance, (in the alternate universe) that Fed could have won that match. But they would have stopped it at 6-6, because that's when they were told they had 4 more games before they'd have to call it for darkness. Those games were longer than expected, though. At that point, it's basically sudden death, and you have to say it was pretty much a coin flip, no? Surely, Roger's shoulder needed a rest, because he had a giant ice bag on it at the end of the match, waiting for the trophy ceremony. It would have been a question of who recovered better, and came out hot.

I think I know most of the matches that Roger "left on the table." Curious if you want to illuminate?