2024 Alcaraz vs Sinner

Who is better?


  • Total voters
    5

zakopinjo

Professional
Briefly,

Sinner has 2 slams on hard, 4 masters on hard and a 0:3 record against Alcaraz.

Alcaraz has 2 slams (clay and grass) and masters on hard (IW, colloquially called the fifth slam). That means 3 big titles on 3 different surfaces and a record of 3:0 against Sinner (final and 2 semi-finals).

Who is better?
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Briefly,

Sinner has 2 slams on hard, 4 masters on hard and a 0:3 record against Alcaraz.

Alcaraz has 2 slams (clay and grass) and masters on hard (IW, colloquially called the fifth slam). That means 3 big titles on 3 different surfaces and a record of 3:0 against Sinner (final and 2 semi-finals).

Who is better?

Well...Sinner is the number 1. It kind of goes without saying, no?
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Well...Sinner is the number 1. It kind of goes without saying, no?
Yes, the objective of the ranking system is to roll all these considerations into a single calculation. That won't stop people from devising their own formulas for weighing a year's worth of results, but chances are they won't be as comprehensive or as consistent as the ATP's system. About the only major objection one might have is that points aren't awarded for the Olympics. So if you believe that tourney is really important, feel free to adjust accordingly. But otherwise, unless one is a big Six Kings Slam partisan :), I doubt that much room for improvement will be found.

It's worth noting that head-to-head results do count in the ATP's system; they just don't count extra. If player A beats player B in a slam final in their only meeting, then player A gets the title, the prestige, and the champion's points, while player B gets the runner-up points. So when trying to evaluate the players' relative achievements, it makes no sense to look at the rankings and say, "But we also have to take into account the fact that player A was 1-0 against player B this year." NO. That result is already baked into the rankings. The 700-point differential is huge. Double-counting should be avoided.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Yes, the objective of the ranking system is to roll all these considerations into a single calculation. That won't stop people from devising their own formulas for weighing a year's worth of results, but chances are they won't be as comprehensive or as consistent as the ATP's system. About the only major objection one might have is that points aren't awarded for the Olympics. So if you believe that tourney is really important, feel free to adjust accordingly. But otherwise, unless one is a big Six Kings Slam partisan :), I doubt that much room for improvement will be found.

It's worth noting that head-to-head results do count in the ATP's system; they just don't count extra. If player A beats player B in a slam final in their only meeting, then player A gets the title, the prestige, and the champion's points, while player B gets the runner-up points. So when trying to evaluate the players' relative achievements, it makes no sense to look at the rankings and say, "But we also have to take into account the fact that player A was 1-0 against player B this year." NO. That result is already baked into the rankings. The 700-point differential is huge. Double-counting should be avoided.

I think h2h matters, but the ranking points aren't even close.
 
Top