For the sake of tennis, one player in particular must rise to the top

The Herald Scotland

6 hours ago

One particularly intense, beautiful and hugely competitive rivalry is exactly why men's tennis thrived to the extent it did for a decade-and-a-half from the mid-2000s. That rivalry was the Roger Federer - Rafa Nadal match-up.
Across all of sport, there have been few rivalries which have produced quite as much interest, tension, joy, heartbreak and world-class sport as the Federer-Nadal version. It's why there was such a visceral feeling of devastation when first Federer, then Nadal retired.
How would men's tennis ever recover, it was asked?
Inevitably, though things move on and already, there's a new rivalry that has seamlessly replaced Federer and Nadal as the most compelling head-to-head in tennis.
Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz have filled the vacuum created by the departure of Federer and Nadal and they are, indisputably, the new stars of men's tennis. Of the last eight grand slam tournaments, the pair have won seven between them, with only Novak Djokovic breaking up the monopoly.
Sinner and Alcaraz are the biggest names in the sport and, by some margin, the two best players. Their French Open final earlier this month was one of the greatest matches the sport has ever seen. Some have suggested it's the very best ever, although I wouldn't go that far.
Alcaraz prevailed in Paris a few weeks ago, and it's the Spaniard who leads the head-to-head 5-2, but it's Sinner who is number one in the world.
Whatever the statistics, though, what is clear is that, providing serious injury does not derail the career of either man, it's Alcaraz and Sinner who will dominate men's tennis over the coming years, perhaps even for the next decade.
(Image: Andy Cheung/ Getty Images) A rivalry of this quality is, objectively, a good thing for the sport.
But for the good of tennis, one man in particular from this duo must prevail. That man is Carlos Alcaraz.
There's a number of reasons why it's so important that Alcaraz and not Sinner becomes the next real tennis great.
The first reason is down to the style of their tennis.
Alcaraz is, to my eye anyway, a far more flashy, skilful and compelling player to watch. The Spaniard has considerably more flair and variety in comparison to Sinner. The Italian is, it cannot be denied, a phenomenon on the tennis court. So consistently outstanding are his ground strokes, he's almost robotic-like. The sparsity of his unforced errors is remarkable. And the quality of his hitting is perhaps the best the sport has ever seen.
But, for me, watching that style of tennis for a prolonged length of time, no matter how high quality it is, just isn't all that interesting. Give me variety, flair, imagination and creativity any day of the week, even if it results in quite a few more unforced errors.
Alcaraz is the defending champion at Wimbledon (Image: Getty Images) The second reason is personality. Alcaraz is a far more compelling character than Sinner.
The Italian is, on the face of it, a nice guy. It's almost impossible to find anyone who has a bad word to say about him, and he certainly comes across in the press as an amicable, friendly and genuinely decent guy. He also, though, is quite boring.
Alcaraz in contrast, has a personality that shines through. He seems like a young guy who can't quite believe his luck that he's living this life. There's something very endearing about his youthful exuberance, with the way he celebrated his French Open victory with the Roland Garros ball kids the perfect example of just what's so likeable about the Spaniard.
The final reason is perhaps the most pertinent for me. Earlier this year, Sinner served a doping ban.
The details of his case are somewhat convoluted but, to simplify it, Sinner claimed that his trainer had a banned substance on his hands and when treating the Italian, the substance transferred to Sinner and caused his positive test.
The Italian was banned from tennis for three months but there was considerable outcry over the alleged preferential treatment he was given and the leniency in allowing him back on tour after such a short suspension. His return was, conveniently, just in time for the French Open meaning the world number one didn't miss a major tournament during his time on the sidelines, nor did he lose his number one ranking. While Sinner wasn't unjustly 'let off' with anything, he was, it seems, treated very favourably as a result of his lofty standing within the sport. The outcry over the unfairness of his treatment was entirely justified because when you compare how fast his infringement was dealt with, as well as his lenient punishment, it's hard to argue that his doping case was handled in a comparable way to the cases of his lower-ranked peers following doping allegations.
I don't believe Sinner is a prolific doper, not even close. I actually think his explanation for his positive test is entirely plausible. But I do think it's not a good look for any sport to have a doping conviction on the record of the top player.
It's hard to see any way in which this new era of men's tennis isn't the Sinner and Alcaraz era. Tennis will benefit from this pair dominating; they're both outstanding tennis players and will, in all likelihood, move the game on even from the remarkable standard that Federer and Nadal set during their time of dominance.
With Wimbledon beginning tomorrow, only a fool would bet against the prediction that we're heading for yet another Sinner-Alcaraz final. Objectively, this would be positive for the sport, particularly if the Wimbledon final is another classic in the way the French Open final was but in this head-to-head, I'll always be willing the Spaniard on.
So while having this duo at the top of the game is a good thing for tennis, what will be really good for tennis, for so many reasons, will be if Alcaraz prevails, and emerges as the top dog.