Was the match really that bad?

[TheNachoMan]

Watch some amazing footballers/soccer players do some amazing things, and then you will see where art can be bought into a conversation about a sport).

*cries in prime Hazard*

 

[FeroBango]

I see what you are saying, but my point is that yesterday was all about Sinner getting the win (his first at this level). He didn't have to make it pretty, he just had to secure the result, and ADM having such a bad day meant that Sinner could just keep it in 3rd gear and take the win. This was not the match to be judging Sinner's level by. He won a final 6-4. 6-1, and yet he is being criticized...


See above. That match couldn't have possibly convinced you (or anyone) of anything. How could it? How could winning 4 and 1 in pretty routine fashion (especially the second set), against a struggling opponent, ever be that convincing? Beating ADM was never going to make a statement or make people think Sinner took some big step forward, no matter what. He was supposed to win.

If anything, it just tells us that Sinner's baseline level of play (his aforementioned 3rd gear), is still pretty darn good.

And I also don't agree he got lucky that ADM wasn't playing well. Maybe (most likely) Sinner raises his game against a better opponent. And besides Murray being a walkover, his draw wasn't super easy. All of his opponents had the potential to be really tough matches, and he still came through with relative ease, only dropping a set to the in-form Monfils (who had just blown away Eubanks and Tsitsipas).


It only "means" he can win a M1000, because that's what happened. Nobody is ascribing any higher meaning to it...


So running down and reaching really tough balls is "artistic" to you? Constant drop shots is artistic to you? You must have some pretty low standards.

(And let me just add something that I'm sure will be really well received on these boards: It's tennis. It's actually a fairly straightforward game, and there isn't as much room for "art" as some of you seem to think. Watch some amazing footballers/soccer players do some amazing things, and then you will see where art can be bought into a conversation about a sport).

Correct. Running after 1 ball like school children and fluking a kick out is art.

Realise how asinine this sounds? If you think Alcaraz is all about scrambling and dropshots, then Nadal is all about banana endeavours and Roger, first serves.

Watch some Tennis. At least of the subject here. Watch enough matches of his and then form an opinion. Yours would probably still be wrong but do it the right way.

 

[robyrolfo]

Do you know what a false dichotomy fallacy is? Why did yesterday have to be about Sinner getting the win vs Sinner getting the win and playing a great match? The match yesterday was crap, going by the highlights alone.

Yes, I know what it is... but you clearly don't understand it well enough to apply the concept to this argument, do you? Because, well, you are completely wrong.

And someone else already explained a large part of the reason why. ADM is known for his excellent speed and defending. Hitting a huge number of winners past him is never going to be easy in some conditions. So, yeah, it's going to be hard to play a "great" match (which to you, apparently, great = fun highlights, which is something else you should reflect on) against a lackluster ADM. A great tennis match requires both participants to be playing in a way that allows for greatness. ADM wasn't playing that way.

So yes, against a lackluster (or make to look lackluster) ADM, going for your first ever M1000 win, you can either stick with the straightforward tennis that is going to get you a 6-4, 6-1 win, or I suppose you could start going for lines and fun shots that will please the lame fans that can only be bothered to watch the highlights and judge the match on that alone.

LOL this is hilarious. Running down the balls is not what makes Alcaraz's game more satisfactory and pleasant to watch, it is his variety. Drop shots? You talk as if that is the only thing he does. It's precisely the fact that Alcaraz uses drop shots, lobs, volleys, and every other single shot in the arsenal, and that he has an attacking mindset and is unpredictable that makes him great. And yes, tennis can be an artistic sport for sure, if it is played with taste. The fact you think there is no room for "art" or creativity in tennis is what is the problem. Apparently, it is you who has the low standards.

One just has to head to Youtube and watch some highlights reels from different players to get an idea of which players are worth watching and which aren't. There is a reason Alcaraz (and Federer before him) have such a huge draw on audiences. People are not all idiots.

Oh, wow, those lobs! What a genius it takes to notice your opponent is right up at the net so, wait for it, you can try to hit it over his head! And to think that no other tennis player in the world has ever thought of such a shot, or has the ability to pull it off. Astounding.

Look, tennis obviously has some room for creativity, variety and shot selection, but there are some limits that other sports don't have. So calling it "art" becomes a stretch. How many times have we seen Alcaraz (and other players) hit a drop shot, and then lob the guy that has just barely managed to run it down and get it back over the net? We see it a lot, and every time it is indeed pleasant to see, but after a while some of those points start to look pretty similar. It's a repeatable tactic. Now compare that to a sport like soccer/football, and just... you cant...

Correct. Running after 1 ball like school children and fluking a kick out is art.

Realise how asinine this sounds?

Yeah, you don't get it. Which is fine. But you should avoid silly comments like this. Think twice before comparing a sport where you have to simultaneously consider the whereabouts of 20 other players, all with the freedom to move wherever they want, as fast as they want, and half of them with the ability to directly interfere with what you are doing... Get the point?

 

[Genious at Work]

Yes, I know what it is... but you clearly don't understand it well enough to apply the concept to this argument, do you? Because, well, you are completely wrong.

What type of an argument is this? You said that this was about Sinner just winning by any means, and I told you that winning doesn't preclude playing a good match. Playing against De Minaur is no excuse either. Alcaraz and De Minaur played a very entertaining match in Barcelona last year.

 

[Genious at Work]

Look, tennis obviously has some room for creativity, variety and shot selection, but there are some limits that other sports don't have. So calling it "art" becomes a stretch. How many times have we seen Alcaraz (and other players) hit a drop shot, and then lob the guy that has just barely managed to run it down and get it back over the net? We see it a lot, and every time it is indeed pleasant to see, but after a while some of those points start to look pretty similar. It's a repeatable tactic. Now compare that to a sport like soccer/football, and just... you cant...

What limits are there in tennis for creativity that other sports don't have? Actually, tennis can be one of the most beautiful sports to watch. Why do you watch tennis?

Sinner is pretty one-dimensional compared to Alcaraz, though what he does he does very well, and that is why he has an even H2H with Alcaraz right now. Alcaraz has a different playing philosophy.

 

[FeroBango]

Yes, I know what it is... but you clearly don't understand it well enough to apply the concept to this argument, do you? Because, well, you are completely wrong.

And someone else already explained a large part of the reason why. ADM is known for his excellent speed and defending. Hitting a huge number of winners past him is never going to be easy in some conditions. So, yeah, it's going to be hard to play a "great" match (which to you, apparently, great = fun highlights, which is something else you should reflect on) against a lackluster ADM. A great tennis match requires both participants to be playing in a way that allows for greatness. ADM wasn't playing that way.

So yes, against a lackluster (or make to look lackluster) ADM, going for your first ever M1000 win, you can either stick with the straightforward tennis that is going to get you a 6-4, 6-1 win, or I suppose you could start going for lines and fun shots that will please the lame fans that can only be bothered to watch the highlights and judge the match on that alone.

Oh, wow, those lobs! What a genius it takes to notice your opponent is right up at the net so, wait for it, you can try to hit it over his head! And to think that no other tennis player in the world has ever thought of such a shot, or has the ability to pull it off. Astounding.

Look, tennis obviously has some room for creativity, variety and shot selection, but there are some limits that other sports don't have. So calling it "art" becomes a stretch. How many times have we seen Alcaraz (and other players) hit a drop shot, and then lob the guy that has just barely managed to run it down and get it back over the net? We see it a lot, and every time it is indeed pleasant to see, but after a while some of those points start to look pretty similar. It's a repeatable tactic. Now compare that to a sport like soccer/football, and just... you cant...


Yeah, you don't get it. Which is fine. But you should avoid silly comments like this. Think twice before comparing a sport where you have to simultaneously consider the whereabouts of 20 other players, all with the freedom to move wherever they want, as fast as they want, and half of them with the ability to directly interfere with what you are doing... Get the point?

Of course I get the point. You didn't try to get mine, though. It's alright. Now dive like a silly professional wrestler for a penalty.