I would have thought he didnt know what to do in the second set because Alcaraz was
everywhere, he was definitely the dominant player of that set and played at a higher level
than the first, it took him 3 games to get going in the first set. I think against anyone else
apart from maybe Sinner or Djokovic as Serveria.com points out Medvedev would have
had a better day out.
I know its a bit premature to say but at that level yesterday I can see anyone beating
Alcaraz in Miami
everywhere, he was definitely the dominant player of that set and played at a higher level
than the first, it took him 3 games to get going in the first set. I think against anyone else
apart from maybe Sinner or Djokovic as Serveria.com points out Medvedev would have
had a better day out.
I know its a bit premature to say but at that level yesterday I can see anyone beating
Alcaraz in Miami
Alcaraz put in the right effort at the right time. That is exactly the way how you beat Medvedev. Once you broke him mentally, it comes down to avoiding unforced errors and not bring him back into the game with your own weakness. I think that playing against Medvedev can then even become easy. It is the first set often times. Of course Medvedev had games where he was able to come back, but it doesn't happen very often and most of the time once he got broken, he is broken for the whole game.
Now we will see whetehr Alcaraz is about to have a good run this year or whether he will show his second face once again anytime soon and loses games that he is supposed to dominate normally.
But not everyone can play like Alcaraz, and to keep up such a performance for a full match.
It will be very interesting to see if he can keep that level of performance up. I would love to
see him in the final of Miami against Sinner!
I think they are opposite ends of the draw so it looks possible . . .
Agree and I think Sinner and Alcaraz at the moment are the only players who could be able to build a real legacy over many years. There are obviously many good players, but none of them seems to be stable enough to get something big going. Zverev has good games, then crashes. Tsitsipas has amazing games, then crashes. Medvedev has meltdowns all the time, but somehow manages to reach finals quite often.
Alcaraz has the potential to become someone like Nadal or any of the GOATS. But I think for everyone of us who likes tennis, it become more and more evident that we have been spoiled over all those years. The chance to have a three-way competition like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal at the same time is extremely slight.
Ah yes the 3 way competition has been discussed a few times but do we have to have a 3 top
players like Federer, Djokovich and Nadal all the time? It had been brilliant for everyone to
witness that era of those 3 players but things change, we might have only 2 going forward for
the next 10+ years or there might not be a even 2 dominant players.
Its an interesting discussion, would Tennis suffer if all the competitions over the next 10 years
was to be won by a mixture of players in the top10? would that not be refreshing?
If I could make a comparison to F1 in the mid 90's and early 00's when Michael Schumacher was
racing and won almost every race and won 7 drivers championships, for me F1 became Veeeeery
boring and I switched off.
Ok that didnt happen when we had the 3[4] top players in Tennis but I dont think it would be a
bad think if we didnt have that scenario again.
