Carlos Alcaraz-Jannik Sinner Is Tennis’s Budding Rivalry of the Future

Sure, the sample size is small. But there are undeniable parallels between this young duo and one of the sport’s all-time greatest rivalries.

• Credit Petra Kvitová, the ubiquitously well-liked Czech, for winning the Miami Open, her biggest title since Wimbledon 2014.

• Credit Daniil Medvedev for his sustained hardcourt excellence, winning the Miami Open men’s title. (Fun fact: he has won 19 career titles. And has never won the same title twice.)

• Credit the USTA for this excellent April Fool’s tweet.

• Here’s a long piece on the WTA and its China dilemma.

• Lots of late-coming mail on pickleball, which, in keeping with the times, is a great force of polarization. We’ll get to it next week….

Onward….

---

Hi, Jon,

The 3-3 split in head-to-head matches between [Jannik] Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz, combined with truly thrilling matches and individual points in big tournaments, suggests this could be a rivalry for the ages. But given Sinner's inability to get past the quarters of a Slam or close out a Masters 1000 title, is it to be a more fleeting one?

Rob

Lots of Sinner/Alcaraz questions. And rightly so, coming off their insta-classic in Miami that featured as fine a tennis point as you could hope to see. Note the versatility and athleticism and bold shotmaking decisions in this point.

This is a classic case of the push/pull between wanting to stick a wedge in the wheels of the hype train … while acknowledging there’s something really special here. Two young players. Both thoroughly likable. A study in stylistic contrasts. Oscillating results.

One theme that came up a few times: Is this the new Federer/Nadal? Long way to go before this hits those levels. But parallels are undeniable. Raised in middle-class surroundings (not far from the Swiss border) Sinner is the amiable polyglot. The next person to say something critical about him will be the first.

He is a natural talent, who makes little fuss on the courts and—by appearances, anyway—discharges his duties with something veering on ease.

Sinner and Alcaraz have split their head-to-head battles so far, and there appears to be many more to come :: Mark J. Terrill/AP

Younger and more physical, Alcaraz is the sui generis Spaniard, winning majors as a teenager. He also—and one suspects this is no coincidence—has Nadal’s gift for competing ferociously, as though his salvation rests on the outcome of points. And then, as soon as the match ends, gushes with praise and respect for everyone but himself. Here’s his tweet following last week’s semifinal defeat. Sound familiar?

As the reader notes, let’s not get carried away. They’ve played six times. Small sample size. Sinner is solidly in the top 10 but has never been to a major or won a 1000 event. For that matter, awesome as he is, Alcaraz has been beyond the quarters of a major only one time.

But if you’re looking for signs that men’s tennis will survive the Big Three Era? That rivalry will still take hold? That you can grab fans by the lapel without polarizing? That men’s tennis can accommodate different styles? Here’s strong proof.

---

There was a lot of back and forth on Twitter last week about Wimbledon’s decision not to bar Russian players, as well as the Ukrainian players’ discontent with the WTA. I linked to this Peter Bodo piece and had a few offline discussions. … A catch-all.

I probably owe full disclosure here that P.B. is a good friend, and has been for years. I’m not sure we’re that far apart on this issue. Russia is, deservedly, a global pariah. (Aside: man, is that Navalny documentary haunting.) Russia is the bad actor here. This was an unjust, unprovoked invasion—not a military action or territory skirmish. All sympathy should reside with Ukraine. All revulsion and condemnation should rest with Russia and Putin. The global community, sports included, should use levers of soft power (and economic power) to confront Russia.

But in this specific case, my view is that a Russia ban is not right and, maybe more important, not effective. We’re not talking about banning a Russian delegation, a la the Olympics or World Cup. Tennis is an individual sport. Players are individual contractors. Many of whom don’t even live in their country of national origin. Some Russians are outwardly and openly opposed to the war. (Who has been more clear and forceful in repudiating Putin than Daria Kasatkina?)

Wimbledon 2022 should be a clear indication that, however well-intentioned, a player as a form of protest doesn’t work. Last summer, the tournament went on without Russians. Fine. But the topic of unjust war was avoided, not confronted. (If condemnation is the goal, wouldn’t it be better to have Russian players facing questions and dealing with fan reaction?) The Tours responded by refusing to confer ranking points, so the “value” of players became distorted and subsequent seedings went sideways. No other majors joined Wimbledon. And a Russian-born player whose parents still, reportedly, live in Moscow ended up winning the women’s title. What was accomplished here? What did this contribute to an overall denunciation of the war—presumably the goal in the first place?

Wait. What?

Why did a Russian player get a wildcard into the main draw of Miami?!?!?

Helen of D.C.

You might think this was an April Fool’s joke. You might think that as tennis tries to balance outrage for Russia with a resistance to punish individual players … as Wimbledon grudgingly dropped its Russia/Belarus ban, but with codicils … as Ukrainian players express concern that Russian counterparts are going about business as usual … as American journalists are being jailed in Russia, Brittney Griner-style … the Miami Open might want to avoid conferring a wild card on a Russian player. But, no, Helen is correct. Erika Andreeva is the name in question. Note that her sister Mirra Andreeva, age 15, is among the world’s best juniors. She is a client of IMG, which … happens to operate the Miami event. Tennis, man.

---

Hi Jon;

Do you think tennis authorities should heed Frances Tiafoe’s call to loosen the restrictions on fan movement and talking during matches? Personally, I think fans should remain quiet during play. But without enabling soccer level hooliganism, some relaxation of movement rules may be worth considering. Allowing people to go to their seats without waiting for a changeover, for instance, could diminish the unfortunate optics of top players competing in half empty stadiums.

Teddy C., NYC

Let’s take your last point first. Tennis has a real attendance problem. This was thrown into sharp relief for me watching the Netflix doc series. You had these matches cracked up as fierce, pressure-filled career-changing battles; and they played out in front of largely empty stands.

Whether the venues are too big; or the hospitality tents are too alluring; or so much revenue comes from media and sponsorship that ticket sales take on less importance; or tickets are too expensive … way too much tennis plays out in front of empty stands. It’s a tough look on TV (If no one is there in person, why should I invest at home?) And it robs the event of atmosphere.

To Frances’s point, sure, making tennis a better/looser in-arena experience merits consideration. If tennis eased some of its restrictions and crowd etiquette rules, great. To me it’s less about confronting tradition than about pragmatism. Players need some level of focus. Players need to hear the ball coming off their opponent’s string. When there is a hindrance—an extended grunt; a ballcap falling off a player’s head and landing on the court; a stray beep from a courtside machine—notice how quickly players stop play or complain.

I don’t want to put ALL the onus on the players. And maybe this is an issue for the PTPA. But the players are the critical figures here. If they said, “Hey, we want the NBA atmosphere; clap those Thunderstix when I toss the ball for my serve; try to distract me as I hit a volley; heckle me after points,” I imagine we would see a real loosening of conventions.

---

Nadal has won just one of four matches in 2023, but he’s still likely to contend at Roland Garros :: Mike Frey/USA TODAY Sports

Hi, Jon:

Since the tennis pro circuit embraces betting while prosecuting match-fixing AND there are two majors coming up relatively soon, which would be the best return to betting:

a) Nadal wins his 23rd Grand Slam in Paris.

b) Djokovic wins his 23rd Grand Slam in Paris.

c) Nadal wins his 23rd Grand Slam in Wimbledon.

d) Djokovic wins his 23rd Grand Slam in Wimbledon.

e) 2023 will be the year in which neither Nadal nor Djokovic tie with Serena.

Is there any betting site currently allowing for betting on 23 in 2023?

Regards,
L. Pereira (BC, Canada)

Michael Jordan (No. 23, of course) would love this. So would Elena Rybakina, age 23. Ah, numerology.

I would not bet against Nadal at Roland Garros. Yes, he hasn’t won a tournament since last June. Yes, he’s scarcely played since. Yes, he might not be a top-10 seed at RG this year. Still, 14 titles since 2005 is the proverbial mic drop, and (provided anything close to full health) makes him the favorite until proven otherwise. I do think Djokovic will win Wimbledon. And that it’s entirely likely BOTH Nadal and Djokovic will land on 23 this year.

---

Hello Jon,

I hope you are well. Time to face the music… an all time great, while playing in a pickle ball event with HoF’ers simultaneously spits on it, why would you support such a trivial “sport”? NSFW language in the video…

I’ve never really been a McEnroe fan, but as the kids say these days… “facts is facts”. It’s a sad alternative to something (tennis) that demands such athletic prowess and skill. Great if you want to get out and play, but to have tournaments and take tv time? I know you won’t, but it’s time to admit that it is a distraction to something that is far nobler in pursuit. Gonna bite?

Respectfully,
Anthony, Brookline, MA

Let me bite more fully when I am a bit less busy … Here’s top-line: Tennis and pickleball are inextricably intertwined. Overlapping Venn diagram of players. Pickleball played on a tennis court (itself a source of controversy). Pickleball teams owned by tennis players (James Blake, Naomi Osaka.) Matches aired on Tennis Channel. Last weekend’s Agassi/Roddick/McEnroe/Chang event AT the Miami Open concurrent with the men’s final was the apotheosis.

Instead of viewing pickleball as a competitor that will chew up market share and must be crushed, view pickleball as an opportunity. Here’s tennis cognate that is a) easier to pick-up b) cheaper c) enjoying popularity with the ad market and start-up capital d) bringing millions to appreciate a racket sport. It lacks tennis’s telegenic qualities. It lacks tennis’s history. It lacks tennis’s structure, such as it is. There are no pickleball events doing hundreds of millions in revenue. There are no college pickleball teams. There is no Williams family or Federer or Nadal or Djokovic of pickleball.

Point: both have plenty to gain from the other. Facebook can acquire Instagram. Or it can compete against it.