But Sinner wasn't quite unbeatable as you are making him seem even on hard courts.
At the Australian Open he was getting outplayed by Medvedev before his legs completely left him. Medvedev in Australia was clueless against old Djokovic by the way.
Then he lost in Indian Wells, and lost at Cincinnati. The Us Open was fairly impressive from him but his best opponent by form was Taylor Fritz.
Then he lost at Beijing from not a really hc specialist.
Obviously if we add clay and grass to the equation the comparison becomes laughable.
Can you really see 2011 Djokovic struggling with Medvedev in Australia where he straight setted Federer? Or losing to to Alcaraz multiple times on hard courts? Hell even 2023 Djokovic was easily outplaying them both for the most part.
Sinner won Cincinnati.
I don't understand what you want to prove with Sinner's match against Medvedev at the Australian Open.
Sinner won that match.
Did Medvedev start to decline after the second set?
This is also part of the game, that is to avoid wasting precious energy in the previous rounds, Sinner arrived at the final match fresher, leaving only one set in the previous 6 matches, isn't that a merit?
But if we want to allude to Medvedev's tiredness, we can also say that in the first 2 sets Sinner paid the price of the first slam final of his career, moreover the first slam final of his career in which he arrived with the extra pressure of the favourite.
But then did you see the level of play Medvedev had in those first 2 sets?
He served an incredible percentage of firsts, he even showed some unusual net plays for someone like him.
How we can take Medvedev from the Australian Open final as a pretext, playing the first two sets in a shocking way, and compare him with other past versions of him, even net of Sinner's demerits, remains a mystery.
Overall I don't understand why you only focus on Sinner's few setbacks while ignoring all the monstrous things I listed before.
So I was right in saying that to be compared to Djokovic 2011 one expects him to win all the matches without leaving a single game to his opponents.
He lost to Alcaraz and you talk about it as if he lost to any average player.
Isn't Alcaraz as competitive on hard as on other surfaces?
True, but it's a shame that Indian Wells is the slowest hard surface on the circuit, where Alcaraz has always shown he can enhance his game, and in that context Sinner was the only one to question the final outcome.
Same thing happened in Beijing, all balanced matches decided by details.
Then you tell me that Medvedev and Alcaraz were opponents that Djokovic 2023 tamed on hard.
The 2023 Djokovic is the same one who on hard surfaces ended the season 1-2 down in direct clashes with Sinner 2023 (Sinner 2024>Sinner 2023), so?
But then the defeats against Alcaraz were ok, but against Medvedev you concentrated on the only match really in question (Australian Open final) ignoring that Sinner beat Medvedev 5 times out of 5 this year on hard surfaces, and 8 of the last 8 matches always on hard surfaces, adding, as mentioned before, a streak of 13 sets won out of the last 14 played between them.
Doesn't that seem like a show of strength to you?
Why don't you mention the two match points saved by Djokovic in the semi-final of the US Open against a post-prime Federer?
Or Djokovic's 2011 post-US Open roadmap, should I mention you against those who lost post-US Open? were they better than Alcaraz?
In case you'll tell me that all those post-US Open defeats occurred after his physical problems that affected the rest of the season, but because the hip problem and the burden of the case of the two positivities don't provide an alibi to justify some jokes of Sinner's arrest between the clay and grass seasons?
If, to substantiate a theory, that of Djokovic 2011 being better than Sinner 2024, which no one disputes, you focus only on the negative aspects of Sinner's 2024 season, and only on the positive aspects of Djokovic's 2011 season, just to get if you call the comparison ridiculous, then anything goes.
