Historic closeness of the Alcaraz versus Sinner rivalry

[nolefam_2024]

Well maybe, although for me Alcaraz was indeed the favorite - as I wrote. Sinner's movement was not yet fully there and hampered a bit by the issues we all know. I'm pretty certain they planned the training block for the more important RG and not the Rome, the first tournament.

So a final loss with less match rhythm, weakest surface with pretty slow clay as well, some impediment and likely physical work directed for RG against the best clay courter on tour. Very positive for me to see Sinner in this form, exceeded my expectations a lot.

Sure but I think sinner at home on a court that's very small was far better chance than at rg on court Phillipe Chatrier. Now let's see.

 

[messiahrobins]

But other players played longer. Connors, even Mac played longer than Borg. He walked away at 26, and clearly it wasn't because his body was broken as he came back much later.

Agassi was Sampras' age and played into the B3 era. You are making excuses for players bc you like them.

And I'm 44. Genius

Agassi had less majors than Sampras and was not the main man in that era so he felt he had demons to exorcise, again had you properly followed the sport and read his book you would know how Agassi regretted his clown days early in his career so he carried on alot longer to try and make up for those wasted years.
MCenroe and Connors were chasing Borg! Thats why they carried on. Are you seeing a pattern yet.

 

[Rosstour]

Agassi had less majors than Sampras and was not the main man in that era so he felt he had demons to exorcise, again had you properly followed the sport and read his book you would know how Agassi regretted his clown days early in his career so he carried on alot longer to try and make up for those wasted years.
MCenroe and Connors were chasing Borg! Thats why they carried on. Are you seeing a pattern yet.

Yes, Sampras and Borg were afraid of losing their aura and retired way too soon as a result. Their egos cost them a lot and I have zero sympathy for either one.

 

[messiahrobins]

It does get a bit tiring from fans today that "Sampras retired young." By the standards of his time he was not young at all(I mean you can look up the ages of the entire top 100 in 2002 - the amount of 30+ players on tour was minuscule compared to today). Sampras was the oldest USO winner since Rosewall!

Its really weird that the big 3 has made it seem like winning majors over 30 is the norm or the fact they did and past greats didn't must mean they must have sucked. No factors like sports medicine improvement is considered a factor at all. I saw an interview with Fritz's trainer, he said every year they are learning so much and that even 5 years ago the knowledge they had is a joke compared to what they know today. Players train smarter, recover better, and can avoid injuries better than ever before.

And re Borg - the ATP forced him into retirement. I mean all the old articles from NY Times, SI, etc are available online. He wanted to keep playing a limited schedule but was not allowed to. And his battle was going on for a while, it didn't come out of nowhere - he was playing less in 1980 and that really pissed off the powers that be. He was told he would have to qualify for Wimbledon if he didn't commit to a certain amount of events in '82 even though he was ranked top 5! (let's think about that happening today, when your ranking decides whether you can play an event or not. You can't just tell a top player, you didn't commit to x number of events so you have to qualify! That's nuts. But tennis back then was sort of nuts(with all the bannings in the 70s for playing WTT etc)

Players like Ashe/Vilas were directly quoted in 1981 saying "what the ATP/Grand Prix are doing is a disgrace, they are forcing our biggest star out of the game." But yeah some Gen Z on TW in 2025 knows more about Borg's situation than his actual peers did.

great post and spot on. The irony is the same kids dismissing Sampras and Borg will be spitting blood when the new wave of tennis fans who worship Alcaraz and Sinner are dismissive of the Big 3, as is bound to happen as it is human nature.

 

[messiahrobins]

Yes, Sampras and Borg were afraid of losing their aura and retired way too soon as a result. Their egos cost them a lot and I have zero sympathy for either one.

gibberish lol. I would love you to say that to Djokovic and see his reaction lmao. At best you would get silence and him walking away.

 

[Gizo]

Before 1990 and the ATP standardisation, the set-up of tennis was far less conducive to allowing the top players to plan their schedules around / peak for the majors.

The majors themselves didn't pay out particularly impressive prize money; there were noticeable increases in the late 80s but it really ramped up considerably more during the 90s (each of the 4 majors had sharp prize money increases between 1989 and 1990 alone). Numerous other tournaments around including unsanctioned invitational ones, paid out more money at least to winners and losing finalists than any of the majors.

Plus there was far more chaotic scheduling, such as the WCT Finals in Dallas on carpet finishing a few weeks before RG got under-away, no grass tune-ups ahead of the Australian Open grass at the end of the year (such as in 1984), before 1981 Davis Cup ties in the short 2 week period between RG and Wimbledon etc.

Lendl was the first player I heard say that 'only the majors really matter'. But with his prime years in the 80s instead of the 90s, and with prize money at the majors still 'a work in progress', his scheduling couldn't just revolve around the majors. He entered and won an insane number of grand prix and invitational events.

The landscape of men's tennis was just drastically different in 1990 compared to 1989.