Sinner vs Djokovic Shangai Final 2024

Who wins?


  • Total voters
    73

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
We can see how much nole doesn't respect the rest of the tour by making jokes etc but now vs sinner he is serious from the first ball
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I also don't think Sinner doped. I have no opinion one way or another. What I know is that at least there is a fault of negligence

Well, no one "knows" that. It's a judgment call. The Independent Tribunal explicitly found no negligence by Sinner. WADA disagrees, and now the CAS will have to weigh in. So thanks to the appeal, it is an open question.

that employing a lawyer who has prosecuted other tennis players in Sinner's position is shady.

No, it's not. That notion was debunked here a long time ago. Lawyers have expertise in certain practice areas and experience in particular forums. That's why they are hired. But one case doesn't bleed into the next.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Sinner in the final faced 0 bps. That is impressive vs Djokovic who was the best returner on the tour. Is Djokovic still the best returner? I don't think so. As I have posted in a thread before, Djokovic return game is declining fast.

But it's still impressive that Sinner faced 0 bp. But how impressive is it?


Sinner has had 30 matches where he faced 0 break points.

By comparison at the same age.

Fed 43 matches
Nadal 60 matches
Djokovic 27 matches
Murray 22 matches

Sinner has become better at serving out games than Murray / Djokovic at the same age.
 

FeroBango

Legend
Well that was a 5 set fight vs Meddy.
Not comparable with straight set loss to average top 40 player.
Botic on that day clears Med on that day on grass. Still 4-1 now that we're at this nonsense.

Plus it doesn't help that last year too, he ran away from facing him there by losing in straights to Novak. Not to mention losing to Altmaeir at RG because 2023 Raz at RG would have brutalized Sinner there unlike this 2024 version without a forehand that gave away 2 sets.
 

Net Beast

Rookie
Well, no one "knows" that. It's a judgment call. The Independent Tribunal explicitly found no negligence by Sinner. WADA disagrees, and now the CAS will have to weigh in. So thanks to the appeal, it is an open question.
There was negligence the moment a banned substance enters Sinner's system and it is nobody's fault but Sinner or Sinner's team.

No, it's not. That notion was debunked here a long time ago. Lawyers have expertise in certain practice areas and experience in particular forums. That's why they are hired. But one case doesn't bleed into the next.
The point being that Sinner is gaining an unfair advantage, and that some of the people he employs have prosecuted other players. This might not be significant to you, but it might be significant to some players. It also makes it look like Sinner is gaming the system by hiring an insider.
 

Watching

Rookie
The point being that Sinner is gaining an unfair advantage, and that some of the people he employs have prosecuted other players. This might not be significant to you, but it might be significant to some players. It also makes it look like Sinner is gaming the system by hiring an insinsider
Your point being? He should have hired a divorce lawyer instead?
 

robyrolfo

Hall of Fame
Sinner has the highest floor level since 2004-2007 Federer (whil post a thread about this). His game is so straightforward and replicable that it becomes very, very difficult to defeat him and nearly impossible to defeat him easily. I would say, though, that Carlitos’s peak game both here and in Beijing was a tad bit higher, but his floor game is lower.
This is a very good summary of the situation. Sinner's floor level is indeed very, very high, and currently looks like enough for him to cruise through the early rounds of many events. And that is exactly what the big 3 were noteworthy for: being able to go through most players/fields without even using top gear.

Alcaraz, on the other hand, seems to have a big gap between his best level (which is probably the highest on tour), and a step down, which isn't good enough for him to win easy over solid competition.

If anything, I'm more of a Sinner fan than Alcaraz fan, but objectively I can recognize that Alcaraz is usually more fun to watch, and has an incredibly high ceiling that, while hard for him to maintain, is the best in the world at the moment.

The same way Lance let his bicycle do the talking?
I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Lance was doping hard in an era when pretty much every other competitor was at least doping, if not also doping hard. Almost the entire peloton was dirty, and perhaps Lance was just slightly dirtier, but that's debatable. It also seems likely that if everyone was clean, Lance probably would have been similarly dominant.

Anyway, it's just silly to compare a very minor incident that experts call irrelevant, with the era in cycling that was essentially a doping free-for-all, with all sorts of crazy things going on.

Lastly, regarding Sinner's legal team, if you have an issue with his legal defense, then you have an issue with the entire Western criminal justice system. (And that may be a legit issue, but Sinner's situation is hardly unique in the broader sense).
 

Net Beast

Rookie
Your point being? He should have hired a divorce lawyer instead?
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was saying that hiring an ITIA insider who has worked to convict other players is shady. There are other options besides hiring a "divorce lawyer" and hiring someone who has worked to convict other players in the past.
 

Watching

Rookie
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was saying that hiring an ITIA insider who has worked to convict other players is shady. There are other options besides hiring a "divorce lawyer" and hiring someone who has worked to convict other players in the past.
You think that’s shady, I see it as smart.
would you sabotage yourself or choose the best option for your own session in front of a Judge?
 

Net Beast

Rookie
I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Lance was doping hard in an era when pretty much every other competitor was at least doping, if not also doping hard. Almost the entire peloton was dirty, and perhaps Lance was just slightly dirtier, but that's debatable. It also seems likely that if everyone was clean, Lance probably would have been similarly dominant.
My comment was a response to Jannick "letting his racket do the talking". I wasn't saying that he is a Lance type character, or that the situation is exactly the same. But Armstrong is a very public case of someone who was accused of doping, so it was an easy reference for me to make. It looks as if I might have misinterpreted the original comment anyway, as I mentioned earlier.

The judgement calls that you are making regarding Lance being "just slightly dirtier", and claiming that he "probably would have been similarly dominant" if the field was clean are without any base, simple opinions without any foundation. I am inclined to think otherwise, based on his performance trajectory compared with other great riders.

Anyway, it's just silly to compare a very minor incident that experts call irrelevant, with the era in cycling that was essentially a doping free-for-all, with all sorts of crazy things going on.
It is not a silly comparison because the intent wasn't for it to be a comparison. Armstrong is the name that came to mind that anybody can relate to when thinking about a public figure involved in doping.

Lastly, regarding Sinner's legal team, if you have an issue with his legal defense, then you have an issue with the entire Western criminal justice system. (And that may be a legit issue, but Sinner's situation is hardly unique in the broader sense).
I don't have a moral or legal issue, I am just saying it is shady. Now, this is a silly comparison, because a criminal case has nothing to do with a sports doping case. Sinner is competing with other players, whereas someone accused of a crime isn't involved in a competition. The fact Sinner is using his wealth to hire an expensive ITIA insider who in the past has worked to convict other players in cases similar to Sinner's is shady in my opinion, and some of those players are in agreement with that.
 

Net Beast

Rookie
You think that’s shady, I see it as smart.
would you sabotage yourself or choose the best option for your own session in front of a Judge?
How does this help Sinner's image? If he hadn't broken the rules to begin with, he wouldn't have to be "smart", "crafty", or whatever you want to call that.
 

Watching

Rookie
I Wouldn’t care in the least, I would Just want this finished ASAP in my favour.
to each one his own. I wouldn’t want to risk anything EXPECIALLY if innocent.
 
Last edited:

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
This is a very good summary of the situation. Sinner's floor level is indeed very, very high, and currently looks like enough for him to cruise through the early rounds of many events. And that is exactly what the big 3 were noteworthy for: being able to go through most players/fields without even using top gear.

Alcaraz, on the other hand, seems to have a big gap between his best level (which is probably the highest on tour), and a step down, which isn't good enough for him to win easy over solid competition.

If anything, I'm more of a Sinner fan than Alcaraz fan, but objectively I can recognize that Alcaraz is usually more fun to watch, and has an incredibly high ceiling that, while hard for him to maintain, is the best in the world at the moment.


I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Lance was doping hard in an era when pretty much every other competitor was at least doping, if not also doping hard. Almost the entire peloton was dirty, and perhaps Lance was just slightly dirtier, but that's debatable. It also seems likely that if everyone was clean, Lance probably would have been similarly dominant.

Anyway, it's just silly to compare a very minor incident that experts call irrelevant, with the era in cycling that was essentially a doping free-for-all, with all sorts of crazy things going on.

Lastly, regarding Sinner's legal team, if you have an issue with his legal defense, then you have an issue with the entire Western criminal justice system. (And that may be a legit issue, but Sinner's situation is hardly unique in the broader sense).
The problem with the Armstrong case that distinguished him from all other cyclists of that period was his shady system full of cover-ups and threats, he had full power supported by the international federation itself. In essence, while the others had to stay within a certain range to dope, he could do it freely with his back covered. His doping system was ultra-advanced, also having the funds deriving from various sponsors to be able to afford the best on the market (such as the services of the controversial trainer Michele Ferrari). As an Italian I can say that our Marco Pantani was persecuted with ferocious ferocity by the various prosecutors for much less after his exclusion due to high hematocrit from the 1999 Giro d'Italia which he was dominating. From that moment on, there was a real witch hunt against him with the intent of destroying his image by making him the scapegoat in the fight against doping in cycling, while Armstrong, again in 1999, began to establish himself as the leader of world cycling with its ultra-advanced mafia-style system. Cortisone tests in 1999 were justified by deception, like others in the years to come.
 

robyrolfo

Hall of Fame
The judgement calls that you are making regarding Lance being "just slightly dirtier", and claiming that he "probably would have been similarly dominant" if the field was clean are without any base, simple opinions without any foundation. I am inclined to think otherwise, based on his performance trajectory compared with other great riders.

I don't have a moral or legal issue, I am just saying it is shady. Now, this is a silly comparison, because a criminal case has nothing to do with a sports doping case. Sinner is competing with other players, whereas someone accused of a crime isn't involved in a competition. The fact Sinner is using his wealth to hire an expensive ITIA insider who in the past has worked to convict other players in cases similar to Sinner's is shady in my opinion, and some of those players are in agreement with that.
The trajectory of what other great riders? Nobody in his era was clean, and likely not in most previous eras either. And while doping obviously enhances performance, it was never going to turn a scrub or domestique into a tour winner. Lance had the goods, and the most reasonable conclusion is that everyone else was doping the same way he was. Some of the Postal guys switched teams during Lance's run, and stuff like blood doping wasn't exactly rocket science or proprietary.

As for the lawyer issue (or not issue), wealthy people will always have access to better legal council. It's as simple as that. Doesn't matter that this isn't a criminal trial, and that other athletes are complaining. It's the same as regular people complaining that wealthy people have better lawyers in just about any legal setting. It's an issue in our society, and Sinner is hardly unique or different for using his resources to get the best legal council possible.
 

robyrolfo

Hall of Fame
The problem with the Armstrong case that distinguished him from all other cyclists of that period was his shady system full of cover-ups and threats, he had full power supported by the international federation itself. In essence, while the others had to stay within a certain range to dope, he could do it freely with his back covered. His doping system was ultra-advanced, also having the funds deriving from various sponsors to be able to afford the best on the market (such as the services of the controversial trainer Michele Ferrari). As an Italian I can say that our Marco Pantani was persecuted with ferocious ferocity by the various prosecutors for much less after his exclusion due to high hematocrit from the 1999 Giro d'Italia which he was dominating. From that moment on, there was a real witch hunt against him with the intent of destroying his image by making him the scapegoat in the fight against doping in cycling, while Armstrong, again in 1999, began to establish himself as the leader of world cycling with its ultra-advanced mafia-style system. Cortisone tests in 1999 were justified by deception, like others in the years to come.
I agree to some extent. Lance was different in terms of his behavior towards anyone that questioned him, and he did indeed have de-facto support from the federation. That said, after the earlier days of his breakout 1999, I think the rest of the teams essentially caught up to him in terms of their level of doping.
 

robyrolfo

Hall of Fame
A little off topic, but during one of the many shots of Alcaraz and Federer talking in the stands, did anyone else think that Alcaraz showed Federer his watch, and Roger said, "I get those for free" with a laugh?
 

Net Beast

Rookie
The trajectory of what other great riders? Nobody in his era was clean, and likely not in most previous eras either. And while doping obviously enhances performance, it was never going to turn a scrub or domestique into a tour winner. Lance had the goods, and the most reasonable conclusion is that everyone else was doping the same way he was. Some of the Postal guys switched teams during Lance's run, and stuff like blood doping wasn't exactly rocket science or proprietary.
Yeah, it is possible you are right, I have no idea. Indurain is a few years younger, but it is possible he wasn't clean either. Doping was a generalized thing back then. Is it still now? I haven't kept up with road cycling.

As for the lawyer issue (or not issue), wealthy people will always have access to better legal council. It's as simple as that. Doesn't matter that this isn't a criminal trial, and that other athletes are complaining. It's the same as regular people complaining that wealthy people have better lawyers in just about any legal setting. It's an issue in our society, and Sinner is hardly unique or different for using his resources to get the best legal council possible.
Yes, this is true. I am not saying it is immoral or illegal, just that it is shady from the point of view of other players who have been prosecuted by a lawyer that is helping Sinner get off easy.
 

Net Beast

Rookie
I am done talking about the Sinner doping case. Sinner appears to be a good kid, and I doubt he was actually doping (but it is impossible for me to really know). What I don't agree with is all this bureaucracy and rules which allow someone like Sinner with deep pockets which can buy insider lawyer services to receive a better treatment than a lower ranked player without the resources. Whether he was doping or not, he had illegal substances in his system, and that is enough to have some degree of responsibility and to pay some price.
 

robyrolfo

Hall of Fame
Yeah, it is possible you are right, I have no idea. Indurain is a few years younger, but it is possible he wasn't clean either. Doping was a generalized thing back then. Is it still now? I haven't kept up with road cycling.
Honestly, this is a really good question. In the past few years, the times on certain iconic climbs started to surpass those of the big doping era, and in roughly the past 2-3 years they have simply blown them away.

Now, people will tell you that it's down to better bike tech, better nutrition, super specialized training... but these guys are not going so much faster than even super-juiced Lance and co, that it's hard not to wonder if something else is going on.
 

Net Beast

Rookie
Honestly, this is a really good question. In the past few years, the times on certain iconic climbs started to surpass those of the big doping era, and in roughly the past 2-3 years they have simply blown them away.

Now, people will tell you that it's down to better bike tech, better nutrition, super specialized training... but these guys are not going so much faster than even super-juiced Lance and co, that it's hard not to wonder if something else is going on.
They must be using genetic doping, or something which hasn't caught the radar of WADA yet and will be illegal in a few years.
 
Top