2025 US Open Final: Alcaraz vs. Sinner

[MargaretMcAleer]

Zverev, as far as GS tennis is concerned, equals the lights are on but there's nobody home.

There hasnt been anyone home in a long long time

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

The level of competition was used against Novak as well! How many around here talked about how Slams were being gifted to him w/o Fedal in 2023? I still SMH over the level of hypocrisy! I've been saying the overall level of play is "way up there" in comparison to the best! I joke about the 80's when players openly smoked & had "beer bellies," but still able to stay in the top 20! That just isn't happening today w/ players needing to not only be fit AF, but "going for broke" where red-lining is almost required to survive! We have truly talented players struggling to stay in the top 40 due to the high level of competition! Tsitsipas, Medvedev, & the others dropping like a rock in the rankings is sad, being replaced by even more elevated "ball bashing!"

??!!!!???

Everyone always loved Nadal, it was Federer & Djokovic who faced negative scrutiny….

An objective & completely unbiased opinion

No matter how you rank them, Federer and Djokovic are the #1 and #2 greatest players in the history of men's tennis. No one beats them at their peaks. They both produced 70+ wins and 6 titles in 2012, a year that had them face each other, slightly past peak (but still prime) Nadal, Andy Murray, del Potro, and Wawrinka. That to me is more impressive than Sinner this season.

And if you want to go back one more year, then Novak's 2011 season was the most impressive ever. He won 3 slams that year, and dominated a peak Nadal. Sinner isn't beating that version of Nadal. (Heck, he got bageled against 2021 Nadal.)

If peak Federer or peak Djokovic played this year's field, there's no doubt in my mind they would have won the calendar slam.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Phil,
Your assertion that Sinner wining the USO would signify the 'weakest competition in the 'History' is not supported by evidence!
Sinner was in dominant form coming off a HC winning streak of 26 consecutive wins on the surface in 2025, matched by a handful of other men in the 21st Century!
Calling Sinner wining the USO this year as 'weak' is an subjective opinion, and I get you dont like Sinner, and stated you were glad he lost? but that does not diminish Sinners achievements at all! Sinner is the youngest player in the same season to reach 4 GS finals, and the 4th player to achieve the feat after Laver, Federer and Djokovic!
Again you post hypothetically " If peak Federer or Djokovic' played this years field they would have won a calendar slam.
I dont deal in 'hypothetical's I deal in the past or present facts!......Period!

 

[Fiero425]

Zverev, as far as GS tennis is concerned, equals the lights are on but there's nobody home.

It was always in my head that if the "Lost Gen II" members ever made a final vs Djokovic or Nadal, somehow, no matter their lead, they'd give it back to them! If y'all remember, there was only one occasion Medvedev worried me & it was in 2021 when Novak's going for a CYGS! I'm pretty sure I said he needed someone to upset Medvedev b/c he was on an amazing heater playing that defensive game! Novak played raggedly & had over-extended himself by going to Japan for the Olympics! He looked weary & dropped the "4th leg of history" in straight sets against Daniil! Nole's only chance was to skip that flight to the East! Idiot move!

 

[atttomole]

The level of competition was used against Novak as well! How many around here talked about how Slams were being gifted to him w/o Fedal in 2023? I still SMH over the level of hypocrisy! I've been saying the overall level of play is "way up there" in comparison to the best! I joke about the 80's when players openly smoked & had "beer bellies," but still able to stay in the top 20! That just isn't happening today w/ players needing to not only be fit AF, but "going for broke" where red-lining is almost required to survive! We have truly talented players struggling to stay in the top 40 due to the high level of competition! Tsitsipas, Medvedev, & the others dropping like a rock in the rankings is sad, being replaced by even more elevated "ball bashing!"

What’s your point? It was used against all big 3. Nit against Sampras though.

 

[Kieran]

Everybody always

??!!!!???

Everyone always loved Nadal, it was Federer & Djokovic who faced negative scrutiny….

An objective & completely unbiased opinion

Everybody loved Nadal? Who’s everybody? If there was a player universally adored, it was Federer. But even he faced negative scrutiny after the initial glowing reviews, once Rafa’s start thumping him and it became clear that - though good achievements were historical - he could be contextualised differently.

By negative scrutiny, I don’t mean hatred. I mean the initial reactions are overwhelmingly going but eventually they start to calm down and analyse him more critically..

 

[Fiero425]

What’s your point? It was used against all Big 3. Not against Sampras though.

I''ve actually said Sampras had some comp., but it was never at the level of the Big 3! Agassi thought to be his biggest rival, but Pete owned him! He even beat him the last 2 times at the USO before retiring! He was more Sampras' pigeon & people need to acknowledge that! Fedal supposedly the biggest rivalry in tennis; TOTAL BS from jump! Nadal owned Federer early & often! Let's not even mention the record on clay! I think Nadal may have donated a couple matches, but never when it counted as in Paris! Back to Pete, he could have some lame finals due to upsets of other top seeds so it wasn't unusual to have a major final w/ the likes of Pioline, Philippoussis, Ivanisovic, Chang, & Rusedski along w/ Becker, Courier, & Agassi! Agassi comp. pushed him, but he still defeated Martin (USO), Medvedev (FO), & Schüttler "down under;" (WHO?)!

 

[atttomole]

I''ve actually said Sampras had some comp., but it was never at the level of the Big 3! Agassi thought to be his biggest rival, but Pete owned him! He even beat him the last 2 times at the USO before retiring! He was more Sampras' pigeon & people need to acknowledge that! Fedal supposedly the biggest rivalry in tennis; TOTAL BS from jump! Nadal owned Federer early & often! Let's not even mention the record on clay! I think Nadal may have donated a couple matches, but never when it counted as in Paris! Back to Pete, he could have some lame finals due to upsets of other top seeds so it wasn't unusual to have a major final w/ the likes of Pioline, Philippoussis, Ivanisovic, Chang, & Rusedski along w/ Becker, Courier, & Agassi! Agassi comp. pushed him, but he still defeated Martin (USO), Medvedev (FO), & Schüttler "down under;" (WHO?)!

Apart from the ‘lame’ finals you mentioned, did he play against tougher opponents? Or you mean the great Malavai Washington?

 

[Kieran]

What’s your point? It was used against all big 3. Nit against Sampras though.

Why would it be? The 90’s was a dogfight compared to the players who kissed and cuddled athe net after losing against the Big 3. “So honoured to lose to you, Mr Federer, it’s such a privilege. Can I have a photo for the wife, she loves you too! What? You want a photo of my wife? A photo of my wife in her negligee? Why would she wear a negligee, this photo is for you. She’s just out of the bath!”

 

[Kieran]

No matter how you rank them, Federer and Djokovic are the #1 and #2 greatest players in the history of men's tennis. No one beats them at their peaks. They both produced 70+ wins and 6 titles in 2012, a year that had them face each other, slightly past peak (but still prime) Nadal, Andy Murray, del Potro, and Wawrinka. That to me is more impressive than Sinner this season.

And if you want to go back one more year, then Novak's 2011 season was the most impressive ever. He won 3 slams that year, and dominated a peak Nadal. Sinner isn't beating that version of Nadal. (Heck, he got bageled against 2021 Nadal.)

If peak Federer or peak Djokovic played this year's field, there's no doubt in my mind they would have won the calendar slam.

You know know that Roger and Novaks peaks didn’t overlap, they were more or less a generation apart, but Rafa faced them both when they were at their best?

 

[atttomole]

Why would it be? The 90’s was a dogfight compared to the players who kissed and cuddled athe net after losing against the Big 3. “So honoured to lose to you, Mr Federer, it’s such a privilege. Can I have a photo for the wife, she loves you too! What? You want a photo of my wife? A photo of my wife in her negligee? Why would she wear a negligee, this photo is for you. She’s just out of the bath!”

There were warriors in the 90. At the net, the loser would tell the winner that they hate them, and that the hatred would inspire them to get sweet revenge. The 90s was the golden era of tennis!!

 

[Kieran]

There were warriors in the 90. At the net, the loser would tell the winner that they hate them, and that the hatred would inspire them to get sweet revenge. The 90s was the golden era of tennis!!

It was certainly nasty. Plus you had almost separate tours, the fast courts and the slow. Dirtballers and net-rushers. Tennis is better to watch now, but it’s also loaded in favour of the stars…

 

[atttomole]

It was certainly nasty. Plus you had almost separate tours, the fast courts and the slow. Dirtballers and net-rushers. Tennis is better to watch now, but it’s also loaded in favour of the stars…

I think Roger would have enjoyed himself transitioning from the AO/FO to W/UO. He had it in his repertoire to play on all surfaces. I think it would have been easier to win a calendar year slam for him. Not for the rest of the tour, who were mostly 2 dimensional.

 

[Kieran]

I think Roger would have enjoyed himself transitioning from the AO/FO to W/UO. He had it in his repertoire to play on all surfaces. I think it would have been easier to win a calendar year slam for him. Not for the rest of the tour, who were mostly 2 dimensional.

Roger on slow clay? Then fast grass? He’d have to choose…

 

[atttomole]

Roger on slow clay? Then fast grass? He’d have to choose…

No way!! He excelled on both surfaces. Imagine Federer playing against Sampras on clay. How ugly would that have been? Even at the US Open, it was going to be ugly. The serve, the drop shots, the angles…….You have to be thankful they only met on grass.

 

[Fiero425]

No way!! He excelled on both surfaces. Imagine Federer playing against Sampras on clay. How ugly would that have been? Even at the US Open, it was going to be ugly. The serve, the drop shots, the angles…….You have to be thankful they only met on grass.

Sorry, but it was more like "night & day" when it came to surface changes & the specialists on both! In my day Borg was pret' near unbeatable on clay; esp. in Paris! Only 1 person did beat him, Adriano Panatta twice! Then w/o playing Queens, went right into Wimbledon to play on choppy, slick grass! The difference was huge & back then it was the reason Borg was elevated to God-Like status; esp. winning 3 straight Channel Slams (FO-Wimbl.'78-80)! He overcame 5th set deficits to make 6 Wimbl. Finals! in '96, there was carnage going on in the Men's Draw as everyone was upset trying to adjust from Paris clay to Wimbl. grass! It was probably the only time I can think of w/ 4 SF who'd never won a major! There was no Sampras after being KO by his nemesis, Richard Krajicek in the Qrts.! Martin made a USO final later, but choked both in 5 sets; going down to Mal Washington after have a 5-1 lead in the 5th set! Over time, the courts began to homogenize; speeding up the CLAY in Paris & slowing down the grass at Wimbledon w/ perfectly manicured lawns that withstood the pounding a lot better! By the finals, they were literally playing on dirt by the 2nd week!

Back to Federer doing a Channel Slam in 2009, it wasn't half as impressive as Borg's, his play truly being "on the wane!" He needed Nadal to be upset in Paris by Soderling and a colossal choke by Roddick in the SW19 final! Proving my pt., Roger continued a spiral IMO going down to Del Po in the USO final up 2 sets to 1! I was legitimately surprised he came back to win AO over Murray in 2010! Just a tired stream of consciousness! End RANT!

 

[Kieran]

No way!! He excelled on both surfaces. Imagine Federer playing against Sampras on clay. How ugly would that have been? Even at the US Open, it was going to be ugly. The serve, the drop shots, the angles…….You have to be thankful they only met on grass.

He didn’t excel on both surfaces in the nineties. Clay was different. Grass was different. And remember there were a lot of slow dirtballers in the nineties. He’d struggle, the way he did against Kuerten in 2004.

He’d have to choose…

 

[Federberg]

I don't think we are at the weakest competition in the sport, at all! Although there is a Top 2, there is a lot going on, otherwise.

it's a strange time. I think the top 10 excluding the top 3 is mediocre in historic terms. But the top 50/60 is super deep

People just don't like dominance if their guy isn't dominant. This is by no means the least entertaining period in mens tennis. That period post Edberg/Becker in the 90s was horrific. That was one time where I can say with utter seriousness that the women's tour (Seles v Graf) was by far the most engaging side of the ticket.

 

[atttomole]

Sorry, but it was more like "night & day" when it came to surface changes & the specialists on both! In my day Borg was pret' near unbeatable on clay; esp. in Paris! Only 1 person did beat him, Adriano Panatta twice! Then w/o playing Queens, went right into Wimbledon to play on choppy, slick grass! The difference was huge & back then it was the reason Borg was elevated to God-Like status; esp. winning 3 straight Channel Slams (FO-Wimbl.'78-80)! He overcame 5th set deficits to make 6 Wimbl. Finals! in '96, there was carnage going on in the Men's Draw as everyone was upset trying to adjust from Paris clay to Wimbl. grass! It was probably the only time I can think of w/ 4 SF who'd never won a major! There was no Sampras after being KO by his nemesis, Richard Krajicek in the Qrts.! Martin made a USO final later, but choked both in 5 sets; going down to Mal Washington after have a 5-1 lead in the 5th set! Over time, the courts began to homogenize; speeding up the CLAY in Paris & slowing down the grass at Wimbledon w/ perfectly manicured lawns that withstood the pounding a lot better! By the finals, they were literally playing on dirt by the 2nd week!

Back to Federer doing a Channel Slam in 2009, it wasn't half as impressive as Borg's, his play truly being "on the wane!" He needed Nadal to be upset in Paris by Soderling and a colossal choke by Roddick in the SW19 final! Proving my pt., Roger continued a spiral IMO going down to Del Po in the USO final up 2 sets to 1! I was legitimately surprised he came back to win AO over Murray in 2010! Just a tired stream of consciousness! End RANT!

If Borg did it, why couldn't Federer do it in the 90's. What surface was Borg a specialist on? Federer objectively had a better game than Borg. Agassi won on clay, grass and hards in the 90's, showing that it could be done. I understand that you are very nostalgic. Let me repeat it to you, Roger was a specialist on all surfaces. Federer's channel slam is as as good as any other channel slam Go insult Soderling!! As a Sampras fan, you know that he had no chance of winning the channel slam because he was 2 dimensional.

 

[atttomole]

He didn’t excel on both surfaces in the nineties. Clay was different. Grass was different. And remember there were a lot of slow dirtballers in the nineties. He’d struggle, the way he did against Kuerten in 2004.

He’d have to choose…

Kuerten is the only example you can bring my friend.