Too Dominant For Their Own Good: What the Alcaraz-Sinner Rivalry Needs

On the contrary, Alcasinner has won 100 percent of every Grand Slam final in the last two years. Where one won, the other was usually at the other end.

Even in a short time, tennis has not experienced anything like it. They raised tennis to an unknown level. But there is a catch. The flip side of superiority is unpredictability. Is Alcasinner in danger of crushing the famous insecurity out of his sport?

The Federer-Nadal-Djokovic hegemony was interrupted by players who would have been megastars in any other era. Wawrinka and Andy Murray each won three slams; Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic must have cursed their stars to be born at the wrong time; Without a doubt, Daniil Medvedev still is. Barely surviving Djokovic, he was overwhelmed by Alcasinner. No wonder he thinks the world is against him.

The Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era has seen tension, drama and personality on repeat. Federer had to overcome his fierce perfectionist temperament before it derailed him. Djokovic always seemed down with injury in the third round and triumphed in the best defensive game of all time. Nadal was the ultimate sander, backcourt sandpaper, overpowered but underpowered.

Everyone had a favorite of the Three, preferences formed as their personalities revealed themselves during the match. Combat was a key component. Apart from Federer’s brief golden age before the arrival of Djokovic, it seemed that nothing would be easy for the trio either. They owe their popularity to the high quality of what and whom they had to overcome.

We’re still waiting for Alcasinner to find that personal definition. They can only be as good as who they need to beat, but who did they beat? Another layer seems to have sunk in despair.

Men’s tennis suffers from such a personality deficit that Nick Kyrgios confectioners are still evaluating.

Alexander Zverev, already difficult to sympathize with after his domestic violence case, is getting closer and closer to Alcasinner. The rest of the top 10 is filled with Alcasinner debris. Below them are faces like Stefanos Tsitsipas and Casper Ruud, once high hopes, now stuffed.

As the Aussies wish for Alex de Minaur, beating Alcaraz and then Sinner to win a Grand Slam is a test of hope with no prior evidence to justify it. De Minaur is an established player in the world’s top 10, but like almost everyone else in the top 10 or 20, he has not played in a Grand Slam final, regardless of which it looked like a victory.

The exception here is Djokovic. But if, at 38, he’s still the best bet to defeat the duopoly – just as Stan Wawrinka shows more stamina than the 21-year-old – isn’t that cause for concern?

Heavily curated social media and “behind-the-scenes” documentaries like Break Point also fall short of their promise to add personal texture. The women’s game has at least some friction, on and off the court; the women’s side of the Australian Open doesn’t feel like a two-week wait for a clear final.

Meanwhile, men’s tennis suffers from the kind of personality deficit Nick Kyrgios confectioners are still rating.

Thanks to social media, we can see that Alcaraz dyed his hair and is a good golfer. Sinner went to the restaurant. He probably could have been an Olympic skier. Even his drug case was reduced to a beige blur, depriving us of inciting villain hatred. The most interesting thing about him in the first week of the Open was the skidmark tones of his outfits.

Loading

All that’s left is tennis, and as the purists ask, shouldn’t tennis be enough? Well, yes. Tennis is the highest. Perhaps too overbearing for his own good.

To the evil challengers: please do something. Save your sport from the inevitable. Tennis needs you. And in the long run, Alcasinner needs you too.