The first and shiniest star

The second was the plagiarism of the plagiarism of the plagiarism of fan fiction.

The "third" is embarrassingly banal.

Now we're going from: Is it possible that no one can take a set from him? to Is it possible that no one can take two sets from him, even when he's sick? They didn't seem very bored when Alcaraz dominated, or when he defeated Sinner 4 or 5 times in a row, but if Sinner handed Alcaraz 4 losses in a row... Revolution.

If the problem is the quality of the match, there's a lot more tennis to watch.

If the problem is simply "he always wins before; it wasn't like that, there was variety": Let's see... In 2011, Nadal reached the finals at IW, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid, and Rome. Of those, he played (and lost) four against Djokovic. And he obviously won the RG. Very varied. It reminds me of when everyone complained about Sincaraz's too many finals last year (but in 2026 they complained that there weren't enough).

The year before, he had the perfect clay slam (Wimbledon and US), and would have made four clay finals another four times. "Well, that was just one year; in the long run, it wasn't like that." Well, Sinner hasn't been around for ten years, but for two-thirds. These are the Monte Carlo and Rome titles, just to name two. A parade of very different names, I see.

Oh, but those were all very tense matches right down to the last point. Eh, not all. As you can see here, or if you open Wikipedia for the cut score, you'll find that there are many matches in two sets and even many 6/1, 6/2, and also 6/0.

Sinner isn't doing anything that hasn't been done in the past. There have always been dominant players and "weak" moments, but now a lot of mystical nostalgia and simple antipathy toward Sinner have also crept into the arguments. If another player were doing what he's doing, he'd be much better received.

Ninth* King of Rome

No, there's no "more tension" in the killer point at 40/40 instead of advantages; in fact, quite the opposite. At this point, let's flip a coin, because these "improvements" only make the victory more of a matter of luck on two or three points than a battle of merit.

Perhaps, to engage young social media/gamers, we could add some superpowers voted on by the public, or perhaps Instagram-style sketches mid-match...

Not to mention that the most common complaints are that two-set matches (or three-set matches at slams) last too short. Three-, four-, or five-hour battles are exceptions. You don't always have to bow to TV or youth trends for "more popularity" or ""To attract a young audience, we'll change everything ridiculously. We'll lose almost all of our existing audience, but perhaps we'll attract the most fickle segment of young people, those who move on after a month anyway."

Diego Schwartzman should enjoy his retirement instead of enjoying the nickname Pique the Ruiner of Sports.

There are things you can evolve, there are things you must leave as they are, yes, "traditional", because evolving them isn't evolving them, it's ruining them.

And even today we cry 🤣 "The truth is coming" and "sooner or later the ATP and WADA will have to give in to the democracy of social media haters" ...Yes, whatever makes you feel good.

Darderi/Jodar match, the "best" match of the tournament for the crowd. I mean, do the fans really, quite selfishly, expect players to play matches like this from the first round... and then play again a few hours later in front of another crowd that also wants its own three-hour match? And then they also pretend to worry about the tight schedule (which hasn't changed for 30 years at the big titles level) or that players get injured because they play too intensely and for too long...

We also have to speak out in favor of the 12-day Masters. Everyone hates them, but can you imagine replaying a match like that just a few hours later? It's almost a certain defeat. Yesterday's real winner is probably Ruud.

Some players have lost finals with a bagel because they had to go through the Hunger Games in the previous rounds without rest, and others haven't. Is it really more exciting to watch a match where a player "earned" the next round at the cost of not being able to play the next day?

And I enjoy the way she triggers those who have chosen as their new crusade: "Tennis is boring, too many short matches, why don't these pros think about my enjoyment when they finish in an hour and not three? I'm important, my opinion is, social media says so!"

If you want a sport with a fixed schedule, follow other sports. If you want to "be important as a crowd," choose another hobby altogether. If you want a guarantee that the show will be "up to my standards," well, you're in for a lot of disappointment regardless of your interests.

Doesn't logic suggest that if they truly believe he shouldn't be on the court, they should give 250% to kick him out?

Fun fact: today in the women's draw, there were two 6/1 6/2 and a 6/0 6/2. Not a single word of "protest." Or when literally everyone else gives you a 6/0 also in men's draw. But he "has nothing against Sinner and treat everyone the same, but the truth coming soon". Many other truths come to me that are more likely to be revealed first.

Furthermore:

Messi and Ronaldo are not strong, it's the defenders who don't mark them

Pogacar is not strong, it's his opponents who slow him down

Schumacher wasn't strong, it was his opponents who made the last corner wrong

Particularly shameful was the way Fonseca kept inciting the crowd to heckle Medjedovic, but when Medjedovic complained, he ran to the umper to cry because "he bothers me!" Even more shameful was the "handshake" with Fonseca, who didn't even look at him.

For anyone who claims Alcaraz is rude on the court or that he incites the crowd, I'd force them to watch the entire compilation of Fonseca's matches to understand the difference between an energetic and imaginative player with a flair for his work, yet always fair to everyone, win or lose, and an arrogant, spoiled brat who believes everything is owed to him, who gloats that "we're Brazilians, we're made that way" (only when the disturbance is to the opponent's detriment), who doesn't even look his opponent in the eye and laughs under his breath when he nearly kills him with an atomic bomb to the body.

It's true that Alcaraz "calls" the crowd to get fired up (and he's not guaranteed a bonanza in his favor everywhere, no matter how much he's always appreciated), BUT he doesn't incite them to boo his opponent or disrupt his serve. Fonseca does. And I could go on. And it's precisely because Alcaraz consistently displays politeness and respect that the Finals final, for example, took place in such a serene atmosphere, complete with a standing ovation for Alcaraz. Because the crowd wanted to live up to the respect those two constantly show each other. Fonseca, on the other hand, seems to be "preparing" to be the third wheel, a la Djokovic in his attitude: if those two are hugs and honey, I'll be the arrogant and brazen one. Except Djokovic had the charisma and personality for that part, which by now was obviously also half an act, because off the court he's very different.

Fonseca's stadium-like support is a problem that needs to be solved because you can't ask your opponent to constantly play in such a frenzy. And that's how it is. When they start getting significant results, what will they do? Will they put on a Copacabana Carnival in the stands?