Sinner is much better than what he showed yesterday, even if he is no Alcaraz. Yesterday's match was pretty much like that, and that winners stat illustrates this clearly.
I see what you are saying, but my point is that yesterday was all about Sinner getting the win (his first at this level). He didn't have to make it pretty, he just had to secure the result, and ADM having such a bad day meant that Sinner could just keep it in 3rd gear and take the win. This was not the match to be judging Sinner's level by. He won a final 6-4. 6-1, and yet he is being criticized...
I don’t dispute what you say; I’m simply commenting that Sinner actually wasn’t playing that well. I wanted Jannik to win and I’m glad he did. I simply don’t see anything in that match which convinces me he has improved enough to win more big titles. Perhaps the confidence from this will translate, we shall see. Winning MC didn’t make much difference to Rublev.
Sinner got lucky as an in form opponent may have ended with him being on the receiving end of yet another finals loss. Let’s see how he does going forward, I’m quite happy to be wrong.
See above. That match couldn't have possibly convinced you (or anyone) of anything. How could it? How could winning 4 and 1 in pretty routine fashion (especially the second set), against a struggling opponent, ever be that convincing? Beating ADM was never going to make a statement or make people think Sinner took some big step forward, no matter what. He was supposed to win.
If anything, it just tells us that Sinner's baseline level of play (his aforementioned 3rd gear), is still pretty darn good.
And I also don't agree he got lucky that ADM wasn't playing well. Maybe (most likely) Sinner raises his game against a better opponent. And besides Murray being a walkover, his draw wasn't super easy. All of his opponents had the potential to be really tough matches, and he still came through with relative ease, only dropping a set to the in-form Monfils (who had just blown away Eubanks and Tsitsipas).
Sinner has to beat Medvedev or Djokovic to prove that this win has any meaning.
It only "means" he can win a M1000, because that's what happened. Nobody is ascribing any higher meaning to it...
Alcaraz isn't an artistic genius, says a post on TTW. This is one of those "art is subjective, but damn your take is objectively bad, mate" moments.
So running down and reaching really tough balls is "artistic" to you? Constant drop shots is artistic to you? You must have some pretty low standards.
(And let me just add something that I'm sure will be really well received on these boards: It's tennis. It's actually a fairly straightforward game, and there isn't as much room for "art" as some of you seem to think. Watch some amazing footballers/soccer players do some amazing things, and then you will see where art can be bought into a conversation about a sport).
