He explains to Fanpage that there was a systematic error by Sinner against Alcaraz that made him despair: “Chasing lobs on which it was clearly seen that there was no possibility of recovery.”
Italy’s Jannik Sinner celebrates after victory against Serbia’s Novak Djokovic during their men’s singles semi-final match on day 13 of the Australian Open tennis tournament in Melbourne on January 26, 2024. (Photo by Martin KEEP / AFP) / — IMAGE RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE – STRICTLY NO COMMERCIAL USE —
Paolo Bertolucci, speaking to Fanpage.it, spoke about the hottest topics at the end of the French Slam which turned out to be positive for the Azzurri, with three finals under their belt. From Alcaraz’s triumph at Roland Garros, to the challenge with Jannik Sinner:
This Roland Garros shifts the balance, what does one have more and what does the other have more?
“The problem with Alcaraz is that he doesn’t always offer a certain performance, because here he beat Aliassime, Tsitsipas, Sinner and Zverev. Hats off to you. He has won on grass, clay and hard courts, he has no weak points. The problem is that his tennis is so high level, so sophisticated, that sometimes he reflects a little too much and seeks applause, forgetting about the score, losing a little of the tactical discussion. He messes up himself, like on Sunday at 5-2 in the third. But then when there is no more margin to not pay attention to the matter, fourth and fifth, he finishes 6-1, 6-2”.
Sinner isn’t too subtle when it comes to taking stock?
“Sinner is more pragmatic. He comes out of Paris well, because in a precarious condition, as we knew, he was the only one who seriously put him in difficulty. If Sinner is not at 100%, given that he has deteriorated physically due to the well-known facts, he arrived there to win, he means that when he reaches 100% it will be fun.”
From memory I don’t remember such a balance between two tennis players, on all surfaces. Do not you think?
“Balance on all surfaces yes. Then it must be said that Sinner was close to winning on a surface more pleasant to Alcaraz, even if the difference is minimal given that he also won on the others and does well everywhere. If he had to choose the match of his life, he would play it on clay in my opinion, which Sinner wouldn’t do and he would prefer indoors”.
What does Sinner have to do to become more incisive when it comes to the fifth set?
“He must manage better and grow from this point of view. Alcaraz, for example, is more physically structured, while Jannik is not yet at the top. He must also learn to manage certain situations within the match. For example, in the semi-final I screamed in front of the TV when I saw him chasing lobs, on two or three occasions, on which it was clearly seen that there was no possibility of recovery: those things kill you and cut off your legs in the last sets. The point is lost, he lets it go, and instead in addition to that he also loses the next one because then he doesn’t recover. I understand generosity, but it must not lead to negative excesses.”
There is a systematic error that the new world number one absolutely must correct and which has made Bertolucci despair: “In the semi-final, I screamed at the TV when I saw him chasing lobs that clearly showed there was no chance of recovery.”
A Roland Garros in the name of Italians, who impressed you the most? Paulines? Or Cobolli who risked beating Rune?
“Cobolli’s match was, albeit exceptional, while Jasmine played throughout the tournament. Then Flavio is at the beginning while Paolini is at the top of his career. The rating I give is 9+, because the gold medal was missing, but with three silvers and a bronze it’s stratospheric. Then there’s also the genius on duty who writes to me and says that he preferred the gold to the three silvers… then you’ll see when the lean times arrive. Already now they’re saying ‘Have you seen Alcaraz, he’s another category, Sinner would have also lost to Zverev’. We are still in Italy.”
Napolista ilnapolista © all rights reserved
