Sinner’s more even record owes partly to the conventional, meat-and-potatoes quality of his game. It’s a great day-in, day-out asset. Thus far, only Alcaraz’s game is sufficiently aggressive and dynamic—as well as creative enough—to throw Sinner off balance. While Sinner’s game is less interesting, at times bot-like, Annacone believes that it will be better appreciated as the rivalry with Alcaraz matures, and/or other players find ways to trouble him.
“It’s a little bit like how much better (Ivan) Lendl looked when he was playing someone fiery, like (John) McEnroe, or how you really appreciated Chris Evert when she was playing Martina (Navratilova),’” Annacone said. “Sinner is always going to be less flashy and flamboyant than Alcaraz, but that also means Alcaraz’s ceiling is a little higher. But we’re talking fractions here, so it doesn’t matter much.”
What about all those other players, the Medvedevs, Zverevs, Fritzs and Tsitsipases? Sinner has taken the game to a new, impregnable place. When you do the same things as everyone else, just better, it’s difficult to see a new frontier to exploit.
“Maybe the answer is to make what’s old new again,” Boynton said. “What I see is guys maybe coming forward more. You have to. But you just don’t come forward on anything. You’ve got to come forward on quality. But I think you’ll start to see a little bit more of an emphasis in game planning and practicing on coming forward, and trying to take away what these guys (Sinner and Alcaraz) do so well.”
That’s a tall order, given how the game has evolved. But does anyone have a better solution?
