Nitto ATP Finals 2025, Turin, Italy

[kskate2]

I thought a surprising thing was that Sinner was winning the longer rallies. I know he's the more patient, but Charlie has the more killer shots. On a fast surface, Alcaraz needed to win the long rallies.

But he didn't execute those killer shots w/ the appropriate margin, length or spin and it led to a healthy # of errors or misdirection which got him out of position in the point. Once out of position, he's easy pickins for Red.

 

[El Dude]

You are making rather light of why Jannik didn't play for 3 months, though. Are you suggesting that some people think he shouldn't have been banned at all, and therefore the 3 months off are in question? (See bolded above.) I can't think of anyone that has posited that.

I've never understood the argument for how and why Roger might have been YE#1 in 2017. He simply didn't earn the points. Don't tell me why he decided to skip the clay. And there's no pretending what he might have won, otherwise. To me, that's a ridiculous conversation. It's about the points.

As to the similarity with this year, at least Roger wasn't banned, and chose not to play certain tournaments, or skipped due to injury. I don't know what to say about your "what if" in terms of Sinner and the ban. He was banned. What would everyone else have done if he hadn't been? No one knows. That's a parallel universe.

Wait, but Novak won Wimbledon in 2022. Didn't he get those 2000 points? 2020 was the Wimbledon that wasn't played.

Novak didn't play the AO in 2022 due to refusing to conform to Australian Covid policies, whether you like them or not. And he had his day in court. As to the US Open, he knew what the price of entry was, and he refused to pay. His choice. If you want to give that year an asterisk, go ahead, but Alcaraz has also proven himself, subsequently. And is that year really all about Novak not playing? Then I will refer you to @Kieran's argument about times when Rafa didn't play or defend, due to injury. Isn't it the same? You're just imagining what would have happened if Novak had played, right? Who else would you say gives 2022 an asterisk for Alcaraz?

As for Sinner being "pound for pound" better this year, even if, as you say, slightly, I disagree. Carlos MORE than made up for it by beating him in two Major finals. He also has the H2H, even this year.

I really think you should be cautious about forgiving Sinner his ban. While I'm willing to believe his story, he was not available to play because of drug ban. And there is no telling how the year would have gone if he'd played.

Well, I think its safe to say he would have earned more than 500 points in four missed Masters and a bunch of lesser tournaments; he missed out on something like 5500 potential points. Alcaraz earned over 2000 points in the time that Sinner was banned, so I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that Sinner would have earned well over the 500 that eventually separated them.

Anyhow, I'm not "forgiving" him. I'm just laying out the picture in terms of points. I didn't even say what my perspective is, but you seemed to assume I'm taking a stand, which I'm not. I tend not to form hard opinions about things I don't have a real sense of - like what "really" happened with the banned substance. I'm just looking at the results and numbers, not soap-boxing. And as I said, I don't have any problem with Alcaraz getting the #1, just pointing out that--all other things being equal--Sinner would have been #1 if he hadn't served his ban. The only caveat to that is that if he had played those months, we don't know how things would have played out afterwards, thus "all other things being equal." But it still puts a tiny bit of haziness to Alcaraz's #1, in my mind. We can disagree on that, though.

And no, Novak didn't get the 2000 points from his Wimbledon title - the ATP excluded Wimbledon points because they allowed Russian and Belarusian players. If Novak had gotten those points and gone out on the 1st round of just one of the AO or USO, he'd have surpassed Alcaraz's point total. So yeah, asterisk.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

After today Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner have played 3,302 points over the course of their rivalry
Alcaraz has won 1,651
Sinner has won 1,651 ( Sinner was trailing by six after the USO and won six more points today, 78 to 72)

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Fun fact: Rafa's two seasons with 90% aren't 2008 or 2010. They're 2013 and 2019. I still think that the best version of Rafa was 2013. He missed the AO and it was the Year of Darcis, but his overall level--especially through the US Open--was the highest of his career, imo.

For me, the last real year of Rafa's peak was in 2011. After 2011, Rafa was beatable on grass. From about 2005-07, Rafa wasn't good yet on hard courts. So, I'd say 2008-11 were the years it all came together. The best version of Nadal is either 2008 French Open-2009 Australian Open or 2010 French Open-2012 French Open.

I can't say 2013 is better with his first round Wimbledon loss, as well as his results there from 2012-17. Rafa was consistent on all surfaces from 2008 until the 2012 French Open (with the exception of the Soderling loss).

 

[Kieran]

You are making rather light of why Jannik didn't play for 3 months, though. Are you suggesting that some people think he shouldn't have been banned at all, and therefore the 3 months off are in question? (See bolded above.) I can't think of anyone that has posited that.

I've never understood the argument for how and why Roger might have been YE#1 in 2017. He simply didn't earn the points. Don't tell me why he decided to skip the clay. And there's no pretending what he might have won, otherwise. To me, that's a ridiculous conversation. It's about the points.

As to the similarity with this year, at least Roger wasn't banned, and chose not to play certain tournaments, or skipped due to injury. I don't know what to say about your "what if" in terms of Sinner and the ban. He was banned. What would everyone else have done if he hadn't been? No one knows. That's a parallel universe.

Wait, but Novak won Wimbledon in 2022. Didn't he get those 2000 points? 2020 was the Wimbledon that wasn't played.

Novak didn't play the AO in 2022 due to refusing to conform to Australian Covid policies, whether you like them or not. And he had his day in court. As to the US Open, he knew what the price of entry was, and he refused to pay. His choice. If you want to give that year an asterisk, go ahead, but Alcaraz has also proven himself, subsequently. And is that year really all about Novak not playing? Then I will refer you to @Kieran's argument about times when Rafa didn't play or defend, due to injury. Isn't it the same? You're just imagining what would have happened if Novak had played, right? Who else would you say gives 2022 an asterisk for Alcaraz?

As for Sinner being "pound for pound" better this year, even if, as you say, slightly, I disagree. Carlos MORE than made up for it by beating him in two Major finals. He also has the H2H, even this year.

I really think you should be cautious about forgiving Sinner his ban. While I'm willing to believe his story, he was not available to play because of drug ban. And there is no telling how the year would have gone if he'd played.

Totally agree, sister, and I’m lazy as sin but even I could find at a minutes notice that Carlos ended 2000 points ahead of Novak at seasons end, and that he too had points that weren’t given at Wimbledon.

And yeah, Rafa always gets victim shamed when it comes to his absences through injury, and never accepted as it being a shoo-in if he’d played, the way others do:

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Totally agree, sister, and I’m lazy as sin but even I could find at a minutes notice that Carlos ended 2000 points ahead of Novak at seasons end, and that he too had points that weren’t given at Wimbledon.

View attachment 10347

And yeah, Rafa always gets victim shamed when it comes to his absences through injury, and never accepted as it being a shoo-in if he’d played, the way others do:

View attachment 10348

Meh there is that ripped shirt again of Novak! I didnt need to see that at 3.30am

 

[Moxie]

Well, I think its safe to say he would have earned more than 500 points in four missed Masters and a bunch of lesser tournaments; he missed out on something like 5500 potential points. Alcaraz earned over 2000 points in the time that Sinner was banned, so I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that Sinner would have earned well over the 500 that eventually separated them.

Anyhow, I'm not "forgiving" him. I'm just laying out the picture in terms of points. I didn't even say what my perspective is, but you seemed to assume I'm taking a stand, which I'm not. I tend not to form hard opinions about things I don't have a real sense of - like what "really" happened with the banned substance. I'm just looking at the results and numbers, not soap-boxing. And as I said, I don't have any problem with Alcaraz getting the #1, just pointing out that--all other things being equal--Sinner would have been #1 if he hadn't served his ban. The only caveat to that is that if he had played those months, we don't know how things would have played out afterwards, thus "all other things being equal." But it still puts a tiny bit of haziness to Alcaraz's #1, in my mind. We can disagree on that, though.

And no, Novak didn't get the 2000 points from his Wimbledon title - the ATP excluded Wimbledon points because they allowed Russian and Belarusian players. If Novak had gotten those points and gone out on the 1st round of just one of the AO or USO, he'd have surpassed Alcaraz's point total. So yeah, asterisk.

I wasn't "assuming" that you were "forgiving" Sinner. I pointed out something you said. It seemed somewhat implicit. If I misread you, I'm sorry, but I didn't pull it out of thin air. I don't actually think you don't care about the ban, but I see you intend to exclude the reason for the sake of argument, as to Alcaraz getting the YE#1.

However, I still say it's a parallel universe. Had Sinner not been banned, anything else could have happened. Commentators at the time mentioned the benefit of 3 months' rest. He DID come back very strongly, and had a good clay season, meaning a lot of points. Tournaments not played also open the possibility of over-playing, and also of injury. You say he would certainly have won more than 500 points or whatever in the tournaments he was forced to miss, but you assume his year would otherwise have been exactly the same. You can't assume that. In 2024, he withdrew from Madrid with a hip injury and had to skip Rome.

I see Kieran has replied about the other, so let me see what he has to say before repeating it.

 

[kskate2]

Totally agree, sister, and I’m lazy as sin but even I could find at a minutes notice that Carlos ended 2000 points ahead of Novak at seasons end, and that he too had points that weren’t given at Wimbledon.

View attachment 10347

And yeah, Rafa always gets victim shamed when it comes to his absences through injury, and never accepted as it being a shoo-in if he’d played, the way others do:

View attachment 10348

25%. Boy plug that thing in and give it some juice before it starts screaming.