Rank Alcaraz v. Sinner Roland Garros Final 2025 in terms of ATG men's matches

[kskate2]

I can't say as I'm still watching the match. I can only watch so much of it yesterday. Will finish it tonight before watching Stanley Cup.

P.S. In order to add the poll you have to save it. Did you save it?

@Moxie

 

[Moxie]

I can't say as I'm still watching the match. I can only watch so much of it yesterday. Will finish it tonight before watching Stanley Cup.

P.S. In order to add the poll you have to save it. Did you save it?

@Moxie

I didn't. Thanks for the tip! Next time....

 

[atttomole]

It’s the greatest FO final ever, that’s true. In the open era, nothing in Paris compares, when it comes to finals,

It stands in comparison with the greatest matches we’ve seen not just because of its length, but because it was such high quality tennis and almost heart attack territory drama.

I still think Rafa dethroning the 5 time champ at Wimbledon was greater given that Rafa failed the two years previously and lost a couple of MPs in the fourth, and the match dragged on and on into twilight. It was a special achievement.

I think the 2012 final at Australia had less quality than both these other matches and I agree to a large extent with @MargaretMcAleer that it dragged a little with the second and third sets being one sided in Djoker’s favour, and so lacking in drama.

The 2013 semi in Paris was similar and Rafa might have sewn it up in 4 but he slipped while serving for it, at 5-4. Both these matches had drama with the underdogs breaking in the fifth only to choke and let the favourite win, after all.

Borg-Mac 1980, Mac-Jimbo 1982, these are great matches from back in the mists, very high quality and the shared something unusual in common with yesterday: no toilet breaks, just a long hunting and haunting on the court.

Hard to pick. Pete played the most perfect tennis I’ve seen in 1999, but it was straights. It was like Carlos and the Magnificent Seven yesterday: flawless. The 2019 Wimbledon final had the staggering achievement of a 37 year old being great enough to get to within a point of victory, for which he suffered the mockery of fools.

I think yesterdays match is safely the greatest match on that court though, which is good enough.

The greatest at Wimbledon might be 1980, the greatest in New York might be 2009 or 1980 when McEnroe beat Bjorn in a thriller. The greatest in Australia?

2022!

The most perfect match with serve and volley tennis. Seriously!! Alcarez is way more versatile and stylish than Sampras. He has a complete repertoire of tennis skills. I am not going to torture you by mentioning Federer!!

 

[Jelenafan]

I don't know that any great matches aren't without some ebbs and flows and momentum shifts. Most of the matches we'd be talking about are over 4.5 hours long, right? The first set of the 1980 Wimbledon final, for a long time the gold standard, was won 6-1 by McEnroe. The 2008 Wimbledon, which I do think is the greatest, started with many great points, but it's not unfair to say that Federer started a bit lackluster. I think the RG SF 2013 was pretty darned great, and full of drama, but Djokovic lost one of those sets 1-6. And a very poor service game at the end lost him the match. (I think that then Rafa served it out.)

The end of that match was so tense, it was almost a relief that it coasted to a conclusion, (well, for me, anyway, as I was rooting for Alcaraz,) but I wouldn't downgrade the match due to a one-sided tiebreaker at the end.

You misread or misunderstood my post entirely. All great matches or entertaining ones have IMO ebbs & flows and shifts of momentum, otherwise they wouldn’t last 5 sets, would they? ; )

Many great matches have had lopsided sets , and TBH to say the the match in 2008 Federer was a bit lackluster, ????, there is no match where both players are playing at their absolute peak for the entirety of five sets, that unicorn IMO does not exist.

But since you went there , in 2008 until the very end Federer or Rafa could have won that last set. In fact IIRC when Nadal served it out in that 5th at 8-7 Federer had breakpoint(s) on Rafa’s serve against him so the tension was there until the very end when that match finally concluded.

The conditions of that Wimbledon I concede may never be repeated as there was no roof and a sense of urgency was present because darkness was falling so play might have to be suspended again.

The tension until the very end was excruciating and the match TO THE VERY END was a cliffhanger that for me makes it an ATG.

This 2025 FO was of high quality and was a fun match to watch.

I’m glad for your nerves that tiebreaker this year at the FO was a foregone conclusion and a coaster, but it was a deal breaker for me for it to be a ATG on equal footing with 2008. That’s all. I give it an A- versus the 2008 A+.

Again I thought you were asking for our opinions rather than just trying to convince others that your opinion is the right one and others are erroneously based,

 

[Jelenafan]

That 7-0 was a tennis masterpiece. The match didn’t end with a crescendo, it ended with the most glorious muted surgery in an opponents we’ve ever seen…

Tell you what Kieran, I will say this:

THAT 10-2 tiebreaker by Alcaraz, after 5 plus hours and so many missed opportunities was to me the ATG tie breaker for sheer highest quality under the highest pressure I have seen seen.

It was the equivalent of Stephen Curry’s barrage of 3 pointers at the end of that Olympic basketball finals vs French.

 

[Kieran]

The most perfect match with serve and volley tennis. Seriously!! Alcarez is way more versatile and stylish than Sampras. He has a complete repertoire of tennis skills. I am not going to torture you by mentioning Federer!!

What’s wrong with serve and volley tennis? The goal is to win. That 1999 match stands with McEnroe in 1984 against Connors and Rafa in Paris against Roger in 2008 as the most perfect tennis played by one Goat over another one.

Did you ever see Pete play?

 

[Kieran]

I don't know that any great matches aren't without some ebbs and flows and momentum shifts. Most of the matches we'd be talking about are over 4.5 hours long, right? The first set of the 1980 Wimbledon final, for a long time the gold standard, was won 6-1 by McEnroe. The 2008 Wimbledon, which I do think is the greatest, started with many great points, but it's not unfair to say that Federer started a bit lackluster. I think the RG SF 2013 was pretty darned great, and full of drama, but Djokovic lost one of those sets 1-6. And a very poor service game at the end lost him the match. (I think that then Rafa served it out.)

The end of that match was so tense, it was almost a relief that it coasted to a conclusion, (well, for me, anyway, as I was rooting for Alcaraz,) but I wouldn't downgrade the match due to a one-sided tiebreaker at the end.

The 6-1 opening set in 1980 only added to the drama. McEnroe was expected to dethrone Borg in 1979 but he was upset by a Gulliksen. When he blew Borg away in the first set in 1980 it was terrifying, especially for Borg fans. The second set was 7-5 which shows how close Bjorn was to going down two sets. That set was excruciating. He righted the boat in the third and seemed home and dry it with two match points at 5-4 in the fifth, and all of this was just setting the scene for the real explosion that was coming.

The great match between Connors and Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon semi incredibly had two 6-0 sets, one for each player. It’s not always that both players are going hammer and tongs on every point. Sometimes the fluctuations are more terrible and extreme..

 

[Jelenafan]

What’s wrong with serve and volley tennis? The goal is to win. That 1999 match stands with McEnroe in 1984 against Connors and Rafa in Paris against Roger in 2008 as the most perfect tennis played by one Goat over another one.

Did you ever see Pete play?

I’ve always thought a perfectly executed (and won) serve and volley point is the epitome of efficient & precise tennis. Other than an ace. ; )

 

[Kieran]

I’ve always thought a perfectly executed (and won) serve and volley point is the epitome of efficient & precise tennis. Other than an ace. ; )

Exactly, and on the speeded up courts you needed amazing hands to execute. The players back then had to really improvise a lot - at speed - compared to baseline tennis.

Sampras is the most economic player I’ve ever seen. No fuss, just tore his opponent apart…

 

[Jelenafan]

The 6-1 opening set in 1980 only added to the drama. McEnroe was expected to dethrone Borg in 1979 but he was upset by a Gulliksen. When he blew Borg away in the first set in 1980 it was terrifying, especially for Borg fans. The second set was 7-5 which shows how close Bjorn was to going down two sets. That set was excruciating. He righted the boat in the third and seemed home and dry it with two match points at 5-4 in the fifth, and all of this was just setting the scene for the real explosion that was coming.

The great match between Connors and Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon semi incredibly had two 6-0 sets, one for each player. It’s not always that both players are going hammer and tongs on every point. Sometimes the fluctuations are more terrible and extreme..

Sometimes it’s even more dramatic when a player who starts a match horribly somehow dispels the doubts and mentally wills themselves to play better.

And scorelines are not always indicative of the quality or closeness of a set, let alone a’ match.

Plus I’ve seen way too many mediocre 7-6 sets. ; )

 

[Jelenafan]

Exactly, and on the speeded up courts you needed amazing hands to execute. The players back then had to really improvise a lot - at speed - compared to baseline tennis.

Sampras is the most economic player I’ve ever seen. No fuss, just tore his opponent apart…

Doesn’t sound as sexy as “ stylish”, “artistic” and other adjectives but dang I think that’s as good a compliment you can give any player.

 

[Kieran]

Doesn’t sound as sexy as “ stylish”, “artistic” and other adjectives but dang I think that’s as good a compliment you can give any player.

Yeah he was incredible at constructing points. People said he was “boring”, but that was a compliment of sorts, he just did what he needed to, with no drama..

 

[Kieran]

Sometimes it’s even more dramatic when a player who starts a match horribly somehow dispels the doubts and mentally wills themselves to play better.

And scorelines are not always indicative of the quality or closeness of a set, let alone a’ match.

Plus I’ve seen way too many mediocre 7-6 sets. ; )

Oh yeah. Imagine a boxer who gets beaten up badly in the early rounds, gets dumped on the floor twice in the opening round, but hangs in there and turns it around to win. It’s epic!!

 

[atttomole]

What’s wrong with serve and volley tennis? The goal is to win. That 1999 match stands with McEnroe in 1984 against Connors and Rafa in Paris against Roger in 2008 as the most perfect tennis played by one Goat over another one.

Did you ever see Pete play?

Pete’s game was limited. Federer beat him at his own game, and even in that match, you could see Roger’s variety. Pete’s main rival was undersized and could hardly generate power.

 

[Kieran]

Pete’s game was limited. Federer beat him at his own game, and even in that match, you could see Roger’s variety. Pete’s main rival was undersized and could hardly generate power.

You’re drawing too many conclusions from a limited data, and as usual, you keep your prejudices well revealed. You know who else is “limited”?

Everybody. Djoker, Rafa, Roger was limited when Rafa battered him, everybody has weaknesses. The great players play on their terms and impose their game on the opponent.

Agassi was a great player, and a very hard hitter. His game became the prototype for the modern baseliner, while Pete’s was made obsolete by changes made to the sport, which were already partly in place by 2001. I don’t know if you watched tennis back then. It would help me understand your persistent negativity better if you let me know…

 

[atttomole]

You’re drawing too many conclusions from a limited data, and as usual, you keep your prejudices well revealed. You know who else is “limited”?

Everybody. Djoker, Rafa, Roger was limited when Rafa battered him, everybody has weaknesses. The great players play on their terms and impose their game on the opponent.

Agassi was a great player, and a very hard hitter. His game became the prototype for the modern baseliner, while Pete’s was made obsolete by changes made to the sport, which were already partly in place by 2001. I don’t know if you watched tennis back then. It would help me understand your persistent negativity better if you let me know…

They all have weaknesses. That is true. I saw some matches of Pete. His game was mostly serving and net rushing. Very monotonous!! He was a great player, and I will give you that.

You like to talk about Pete being a victim of changes. He didn’t have the game to adjust. Agassi played baseline tennis then, as you said, but lacked power and variety to trouble Pete. Even with the fast surfaces, Federer would still have played both serve and volley and baseline tennis.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

2001 Wimbledon semis and final (Friday-Monday) were the 4 best days of tennis I have ever seen in my lifetime. You're not going to beat that combo.

 

[Fiero425]

2001 Wimbledon Semis and Final (Friday-Monday) were the 4 best days of tennis I have ever seen in my lifetime. You're not going to beat that combo.

This men's event had everything; Sampras being pushed out, the intro & arrival of Federer, & the 2nd year Rafter had to defeat Agassi in the SF!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

You’re drawing too many conclusions from a limited data, and as usual, you keep your prejudices well revealed. You know who else is “limited”?

Everybody. Djoker, Rafa, Roger was limited when Rafa battered him, everybody has weaknesses. The great players play on their terms and impose their game on the opponent.

Agassi was a great player, and a very hard hitter. His game became the prototype for the modern baseliner, while Pete’s was made obsolete by changes made to the sport, which were already partly in place by 2001. I don’t know if you watched tennis back then. It would help me understand your persistent negativity better if you let me know…

Yeah, I was a Sampras fan, but you could start to see the decline in 1999. If Philippoussis doesn't get injured that day, Sampras likely loses that day and has a slamless year. Yeah, Sampras had a vintage performance after that, in the semifinals and finals, but that almost never happened.

Philippoussis getting injured is one of the biggest what-if moments at the slams, and in my opinion, even moreso than Zverev's injury at 2022 RG. Remember, Zverev was trailing in his match against Rafa. Philippoussis was actually ahead at the time of his injury. Who knows what would have happened if Philippoussis didn't suffer the injury and defeat Sampras. 3 huge storylines: (1) Does Philippoussis continue form and win Wimbledon, (2) does Tim Henman finally get over the hump and win Wimbledon, or (3) does Andre Agassi complete the channel slam and continue his dominant year (which we know would have turned into his personal slam, as Agassi later won the US Open and Australian Open)?

 

[Moxie]

You misread or misunderstood my post entirely. All great matches or entertaining ones have IMO ebbs & flows and shifts of momentum, otherwise they wouldn’t last 5 sets, would they? ; )

Many great matches have had lopsided sets , and TBH to say the the match in 2008 Federer was a bit lackluster, ????, there is no match where both players are playing at their absolute peak for the entirety of five sets, that unicorn IMO does not exist.

But since you went there , in 2008 until the very end Federer or Rafa could have won that last set. In fact IIRC when Nadal served it out in that 5th at 8-7 Federer had breakpoint(s) on Rafa’s serve against him so the tension was there until the very end when that match finally concluded.

The conditions of that Wimbledon I concede may never be repeated as there was no roof and a sense of urgency was present because darkness was falling so play might have to be suspended again.

The tension until the very end was excruciating and the match TO THE VERY END was a cliffhanger that for me makes it an ATG.

This 2025 FO was of high quality and was a fun match to watch.

I’m glad for your nerves that tiebreaker this year at the FO was a foregone conclusion and a coaster, but it was a deal breaker for me for it to be a ATG on equal footing with 2008. That’s all. I give it an A- versus the 2008 A+.

Again I thought you were asking for our opinions rather than just trying to convince others that your opinion is the right one and others are erroneously based,

I did ask for opinions, but that doesn't mean we don't then debate them.

In the 2008 W final, I did think Roger started a bit slow. As I said, there were many great points early on, including the very first one, but I thought Roger still started a bit gun-shy of Rafa. He rose himself to his full height in the 3rd. And it's true you didn't know who would end, or even if it would, that day, until the last second, but that one had all of its own dramas. I thought the tiebreak on Sunday was amazing. I definitely rate the 2008 Wimbledon higher. A- vs. A+ ain't bad, though.