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

[Federberg]

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.

I was thinking the same way as you. But I'm starting to change my mind. The case for 2008 was the upstart against the dominant champion. The challenger trying to reach No. 1 for the first time ever. To win Wimbledon against a 5 time consecutive champion. It had been half a decade since Federer had lost there. At that time, some could even argue, that Federer was nearly as dominant on grass as Rafa was on clay. All of these were technically not tennis reasons. Not racquets and balls at least. But it all added a spice and tension, quite apart from the rabid support, and the way their styles clashed. This final was different. Two young Uber-talents whose differences while obvious are far less profound. This is a battle of No. 1s. There's no legacy issue that's particularly profound apart from, perhaps, someone's 0 (finals losses) would have to go. This one WAS pure racquets and balls. If there were dips in quality it was at the margin. Never for more than a game, heck not even a game, one or two rallies WITHIN a game. The level was high consistently. And reached absurdly high levels at times, but never really dipped. In terms of quality I think this far surpasses 2008. I fully understand that some might say in terms of meaning that 2008 and might mean more. That had more of those intangibles, the non-tennis feeling than this one. But in terms of awe factor I have to put this one above any other.

PS, it blows my mind the number of people I've heard on social media talking about the marathon in Melbourne. The only thing special about that match was how much time it took. I don't even have that in my top 5!

 

[Kieran]

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.

Pete was monotonous the way Shakespeare is monotonous to some people. I don’t know why you say I “like to talk about Pete being a victim of changes” - I doubt I ever said that at all. I certainly didn’t say it above. As for Agassi lacking power, I’m not sure if this is fiction or misinformation, but it isn’t true. Agassi was a powerful hitter of the ball, and exceptional at taking it on the rise, therefore catching his opponent unawares. Not in the serve, granted that wasn’t hugely powerful, but it was still good, like Rafa’s could be, and he was blessed with a return that was the equal of Connors, and Djokovic..

 

[Kieran]

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)?

Well, Pete getting injured the day before the USO began in 1999 is a much bigger what-if. Remember, he went on a vengeful tear that summer after beating Agassi at Wimbledon, and his season came fully alive in North America, where he beat Agassi twice more and finally got a W versus Krajicek, who was something of a nemesis. He was prohibitive favourite going into New York.

And he was also favourite to finish the season as world number one. It would have been seven in a row. He’s still the only player to have finished as the best player in the world 6 years running.

 

[Moxie]

I was thinking the same way as you. But I'm starting to change my mind. The case for 2008 was the upstart against the dominant champion. The challenger trying to reach No. 1 for the first time ever. To win Wimbledon against a 5 time consecutive champion. It had been half a decade since Federer had lost there. At that time, some could even argue, that Federer was nearly as dominant on grass as Rafa was on clay. All of these were technically not tennis reasons. Not racquets and balls at least. But it all added a spice and tension, quite apart from the rabid support, and the way their styles clashed. This final was different. Two young Uber-talents whose differences while obvious are far less profound. This is a battle of No. 1s. There's no legacy issue that's particularly profound apart from, perhaps, someone's 0 (finals losses) would have to go. This one WAS pure racquets and balls. If there were dips in quality it was at the margin. Never for more than a game, heck not even a game, one or two rallies WITHIN a game. The level was high consistently. And reached absurdly high levels at times, but never really dipped. In terms of quality I think this far surpasses 2008. I fully understand that some might say in terms of meaning that 2008 and might mean more. That had more of those intangibles, the non-tennis feeling than this one. But in terms of awe factor I have to put this one above any other.

PS, it blows my mind the number of people I've heard on social media talking about the marathon in Melbourne. The only thing special about that match was how much time it took. I don't even have that in my top 5!

Maybe it's all those years (yes, "years,") of listening to @DarthFed and a few others telling us how "terrible" Roger was in that match, which was patently ridiculous. But I did go out for a run at the rain delay that came with Roger serving for it 5-4 in the 3rd, and thought, I'd better hurry up, because if Rafa broke back, this could be over quickly. All that said, though, the tennis was sublime. Enough so that the NYTimes put the match on the front page of the print edition. Not the front page of the Sports section, either. The legit front page, below the fold. And that match did have lots of intangibles. Including a much bigger rivalry, with very committed fan bases.

Totally agree about AO 2012. Mostly, it was just long.

 

[Jelenafan]

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.

I’m not saying a great match means one player doing better than another at the start is a disqualifier, so your point of Federer being lackluster in 2008 wasn’t a consideration to me, that’s all. For example this year Carlos started IMO a bit lackluster himself, but like Federer, improved as the match went on. And as we both agree, in a long five set match there are momentum shifts and opportunities created, made or squandered. It’s the unique agony of “duece” scoring.

However one player being lackluster at the end may preclude it from being an exceptional match for me. I don’t think that was the case in this year’s FO though, it simply was that Carlos ratched it up to an insane level.

Moxie, my unicorn may never happen but hope springs eternal.

A high quality Slam final with all the ebbs and flows for the players and both players surviving championships points against them, preferably in the 5th set tiebreaker with one player winning 20-18. I think both player facing at least 5 match points each would do quite nicely.

I’m a sadist and a masochist that way. ; )