The Problem With the Sinner–Alcaraz Era

Alex Dolgopolov recently posted on X (formerly Twitter) and stated that players ranked between three and fifteen are weaker now than they were during the Big Three era. And I 100% agree with Alex, but to my surprise, there were many disagreements. People seemed to believe that players are stronger between three and fifteen than in the Big Three era.

Evolution of the Game

One thing that some people don’t take into account is the mental game. They just look at the speed of the serves, the speed of the groundstrokes, the amount of heaviness the groundstrokes have nowadays, and it is undeniable that now players hit harder than ever. They are more athletic than ever before. If you take the top 100 as a whole, players are way more athletic than they used to be.

There’s absolutely no doubt about that. If you go on YouTube and you watch matches from 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, you’re going to see the game slowing down big time the further back you go. So, no arguments there.

However, over the last 20 years or so, the game has remained relatively unchanged. I’m talking about from the Big Three era and on. Yes, some new techniques are popping up, but they are not necessarily new. I’m talking about the next-gen forehand, the next-gen backhand. This technique was already prevalent in the 90s, but it has become predominant in the two-handed backhand, for example, and more and more players are executing the next-gen forehand as well.

No Change

However, this, from a technical standpoint, is only a very subtle difference in the takeback. The technique really hasn’t changed much since the Big Three era. When we compare the methods from the 90s to the Big Three era, I think there’s a stark difference there.

And some of this has to do with the emergence of the Alu Power string, which transformed tennis, allowing players to take massive cuts on the ball and making the finesse game slowly disappear, turning tennis into a power game.

So in my eyes, the game is played very similarly now, maybe with more power. But what Dolgopolov said in that text is that Sinner and Alcaraz, compared to the Big Three, are at a very similar level, but they are a little bit more inconsistent, and I 100% agree with that. So when a lot of you guys say that Sinner and Alcaraz would absolutely destroy the Big Three, you’re not accounting for the mental game or playing your best tennis when it matters most.

Beating The Big Three

Can Sinner and Alcaraz take out a prime Federer, a prime Djokovic, and a prime Nadal? They absolutely can. But they can also lose to them. Despite Sinner and Alcaraz’s dominance this year and exceptional tennis, the finals have been very entertaining, but there are still spots in matches that are poor, even when they’re playing well.

They are by no means playing perfect tennis, though there are exceptions. I think the Roland Garros final obviously was the best match of 2025, and I’m not going to feature it in my list. I’m going to explain in a second why.

But if you take some other examples, like the most recent one at the ATP Finals, there were some spots in this match that the Big Three would have exploited. Just think about early in that second set if Sinner had played a prime Djokovic or a prime Federer on an indoor surface, and he drops his serve early in that second set. Could Roger have run away with that set? Could Novak have run away with that set? Absolutely. And then the third set could have gotten quite complicated.

Breaking Records

However, there is one caveat. I don’t think any of the records the Big Three set will ever be broken. And more specifically, Rafa's Roland Garros record of 14 titles will not be broken. And for you guys who think that Sinner and Alcaraz can take out Rafa on clay, of course, they can. But taking out a prime Rafa at Roland Garros is unbelievably difficult.

Let me just give you one example. Sinner, when he plays on clay, he likes to do that jumping backhand. Now, if you watched the Rome final, which was a great match. Sinner was hitting the jumping backhand from behind the baseline because Alcaraz was putting a lot of air on the ball. He was mixing things up. This was an exceptional clay court match from Carlitos.

Sinner, despite blowing people away in this tournament all the way to that semifinal against Tommy Paul, where he lost the first set very easily, was on absolute fire. This was the first tournament that he played after the suspension. But in the final, Sinner wasn’t at the top of his game. And as I said, he was missing a lot of those jumping backhands from behind the baseline.

Now, think if Sinner catches a day where the backhand doesn’t feel 100% and he’s playing Rafa. Well, Sinner will face the same issues that so many players have encountered when playing against Rafa on clay. If it weren’t for this unbelievably difficult play style of Rafa, he wouldn’t have won 81 matches in a row, where he was nearly unbeatable before losing to Roger Federer in Hamburg, and he wouldn’t have won 14 Grand Slam titles.

Other Possibilities

I’m beyond grateful to have Sinner and Alcaraz. These guys are at the GOAT level. We have a replacement for the Big Three. But back to the players ranked between three and fifteen. Some of you guys in the comments said that the level is better than during the Big Three era. Just think of the fact that it’s the Big Three and not the Big Two. So, it’s an extra guy. That’s what Dolgopolov said about the rankings between three and fifteen. And then you had Murray, you had Wawrinka, you had Del Potro, you had so many other guys that were capable of troubling the top players.

I don’t see that happening right now. Just think what would happen if we didn’t have Sinner and Alcaraz. Zverev would be ranked number one in the world. And I respect Zverev tremendously as a tennis player. But he, in my opinion, would be possibly the weakest number one in the history of tennis. And right behind him, you would have players with no slam titles. So just put that into context when discussions take place about how good the Big Three era was. I think it was stronger in the top part of the rankings—the top 15— than it is now.

And because there is such a discrepancy in level between Sinner and Alcaraz and the rest of the tour, we’re going to get a lot of Sinner–Alcaraz finals. And this is the best thing that tennis has to offer.

Final Thoughts

If no challenger emerges in the next couple of years, we are going to start seeing people complaining about Sinner and Alcaraz in the finals all the time. People are going to say that tennis is boring. It’s not boring right now, but let’s say these guys keep playing finals in 2033. I don’t know if it’ll still be entertaining. I’m sure it will, but I think it’s far more interesting when there is a challenger that can beat these guys, like when Djokovic disrupted the Nadal–Federer party.

Will we see that? I don’t see anyone right now who can do this, but of course, I can’t foresee the future. Maybe someone will improve their level tremendously and strive to reach the top. Who knows? But right now, the level discrepancy is too large. And I think in 2026 we will continue to see many Sinner-Alcaraz finals.