I completely agree. Might be a tad hyperbolic but it's the best match I can remember watching that didn't involve one of Fed/Nadal/Novak...That was a good match but really I recommend anyone who didn’t see it to watch Alcaraz/Sinner sometime. If Joe Pos or someone doesn’t write about that match, I might have to, I am still thinking about it.
I mean, I actually think that's not hyperbolic enough. I really would like to watch it s a second time to confirm my impressions, but I wrote on FB that "I have been watching tennis since I was a kid, the days of Borg and McEnroe and Connors, and that might have been the single best match I've ever seen." Here are some reasons I think I stand by that:I completely agree. Might be a tad hyperbolic but it's the best match I can remember watching that didn't involve one of Fed/Nadal/Novak...
Yes, agreed with this completely and also because he has a chance to be historically great, the youngest #1 ever for starters.Lots on line for mens final tomorrow between prize money, the first slam for either, and number 1…
I like both players a lot but I’ll be pulling for Alcaraz. Just think resume wise he’s more deserving of the #1 spot.
Honestly my initial reaction was like “no effing way SHOULD he win double digit majors…maybe he COULD.”Barring injury he should win double digit majors especially when he gets much better.
And with the Big 3 fading outside of Djokovic and Nadal on Clay who else is really in his way beside Medvedev? No one really.Count me down for also thinking Alcaraz gets to double digit slams. For as impressive as his physical gifts, he's the one young player I can remember since the big 3 established themselves to show the mental game that they all have. I had 0 doubt he was going to beat Ruud today.
Nadal went undefeated at the Australian Open and Wimbledon and is 35-4 on the year, I think it's a bit premature to shovel dirt on his future grass and hardcourt prospects.And with the Big 3 fading outside of Djokovic and Nadal on Clay who else is really in his way beside Medvedev? No one really.
It's definitely part of the skewed h2h record, and the narrative that Nadal is better than Fed because of that h2h. Nadal is 14-10 vs Fed in finals...but if hypothetically speaking you remove the 3 fed losses to Nadal at the French from 05-07, and give Fed 3 wins over Nadal in US Open finals those same years, it's all of a sudden 13-11 Fed. Obviously Im having fun with some numbers here, but ultimately Fed hurt his legacy in the eyes of same by making those French finals. Nadal didn't give Fed the chance to beat him at the US Open in the finals in that era because he just never made it. Shades of the "Montana is better than Brady because somehow 4-0 in superbowls is better than 6-3." Not that I'm claiming Fed > Nadal, there's just more nuance to it than is commonly discussed I think.It’s still crazy that Federer and Nadal never faced each other at the US Open.