There was no discussion about Sinner here (negatively that is, for I had hailed Sinner's game in a comment earlier) until you shoved him here in a way that's condescending, typical of an Italian Sinner fan.
The younger, still more accomplished Alcaraz with more upside to his game, who is 3-0 against Sinner and the reigning Channel Slam champion, likely will have the better career but unlike Sinner fans, I can't say anything for sure.
There's no allusion here. Alcaraz could do with some clostebol and become the beast that's Sinner 2.0.
I repeat, the excuse for my sarcasm is dictated exclusively by those who, taking advantage of the seasonal direct clashes between the two, alluded that Alcaraz was the real number 1 of the season when, due to the gap in the ranking, consistency of results, tournaments won, and overall performance in the majors, the question shouldn't even have arisen. Today we had yet another confirmation of this, while Sinner demolishes Medvedev, Alcaraz loses you in two sets against Machac.
It's too easy to rely on direct clashes (among other things, all very balanced) when on all the other occasions in which Sinner could have beaten him the other was eliminated by opponents that Sinner has (Dimitrov in Miami) or would have demolished.
Just as it is too easy to insinuate Clostebol by implying that Sinner used steroids to improve performance. But who says that?
The independent tribunal and Wada itself with its appeal have averted this thesis from climbing on mirrors. If he is convicted it will certainly not be for that reason but possibly for negligence.
And I would like to specify that the comparison is aimed exclusively at this 2024 where Sinner>Alcaraz, no one doubts the evidence that if we base ourselves on the entire career of both so far it is Alcaraz>Sinner. These are all objective facts. Objectivity evidently unknown to many.