2025 Australian Open Men's Final: Yannik Sinner vs. Sascha Zverev

[mrzz]

He's machine-like in his delivery and doesn't show a lot of emotion. He's a bit Lendl-esque - maybe not in terms of his game (maybe more seasoned minds can comment on that), but in terms of his overall impact and presence on court.

Jannik has fewer "holy crap" moments than Alcaraz, but his constant very high level of play is really hard to contend with. There's no particular element of his game that just blows me a way, but he's very good at everything, and superb at a lot of things.

For me the big question is whether he can translate this level - which is very, very high - to clay and grass. His relatively poor showings at Roland Garros and Wimbledon last year may mostly have to do with nagging injuries, but until he wins one of the two non-hard Slams, there may be a tiny little question mark.

Not that tinny, at least not at these forums...

Right now, he is very young and has what it must feel like infinite time ahead of him (oh, the illusions of young age...). But if in, say, three or four years his resume keeps that HC heavy, he'll hear lot about it. Just ask Nadal fans.

 

[mrzz]

Andy made up for it with his Scottish temperament and the fact that his defense was simply awesome. I don't think he was boring. Some of the Novak-Andy rallies grew to tedium, but then you realized, "Holy crap, this has been like 30 shots and they're still going."

Iĺl admit: there is one match involving Murray which I like, a final in which he beat Robredo. Robredo's reaction at the net was priceless.

 

[El Dude]

Not that tinny, at least not at these forums...

Right now, he is very young and has what it must feel like infinite time ahead of him (oh, the illusions of young age...). But if in, say, three or four years his resume keeps that HC heavy, he'll hear lot about it. Just ask Nadal fans.

Yes, exactly. It should be tiny because he's 23 and just hit his peak a year and some change ago. He's Lendl after Wimbledon in 1983, not 1987. I think you're right - if he doesn't win a non-hard Slam after, say, 2026, we can legitimately start wondering (or after 2027 if he gets banned this year).

Anyhow, I expect he'll win at least one RG and one Wimbledon - maybe more. He's probably always going to be best on hards, but his game translates.

 

[Jelenafan]

He's machine-like in his delivery and doesn't show a lot of emotion. He's a bit Lendl-esque - maybe not in terms of his game (maybe more seasoned minds can comment on that), but in terms of his overall impact and presence on court.

Jannik has fewer "holy crap" moments than Alcaraz, but his constant very high level of play is really hard to contend with. There's no particular element of his game that just blows me a way, but he's very good at everything, and superb at a lot of things.

For me the big question is whether he can translate this level - which is very, very high - to clay and grass. His relatively poor showings at Roland Garros and Wimbledon last year may mostly have to do with nagging injuries, but until he wins one of the two non-hard Slams, there may be a tiny little question mark.

He’s like a hyper drive, super powered Fiat, not to be confused with a Ferrari or Lamborghini.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think overall my impression of players with potential is they lack awareness of when to add experts or remove people from their teams. If you look at Carlos for example, I think adding a strategist would help him. I think JCF seems happy to let Carlos run on instinct, and that certainly helps him more often than not, but there are players like Sinner that rarely veer off course, so you have to come up with ways to navigate them off the beaten path. I think for some players they trust the process too long. I think Cahill came on board at the right moment for Jannik who was making upward trajectory, but not in a way he wanted or expected at that point in his career, and I am sure it made the difference in where his slam count will find itself. If you look at Zverev and Medvedev they have hit a wall with their games, and they could benefit from an outside voice helping them navigate matches better.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Congratulations MM, you were correct. Sinner is leaps and bounds better than Zed last night. Zed still has a lot of problems whenever he comes to the front court!

Zed has a lot of problems apart from when he comes to the front court AP, though as usual I am correct thank you

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Ok, I'll say it. Does anyone else think a Sinner match is extremely boring to watch?

NO leave my boy alone no? lol!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

He's machine-like in his delivery and doesn't show a lot of emotion. He's a bit Lendl-esque - maybe not in terms of his game (maybe more seasoned minds can comment on that), but in terms of his overall impact and presence on court.

Jannik has fewer "holy crap" moments than Alcaraz, but his constant very high level of play is really hard to contend with. There's no particular element of his game that just blows me a way, but he's very good at everything, and superb at a lot of things.

For me the big question is whether he can translate this level - which is very, very high - to clay and grass. His relatively poor showings at Roland Garros and Wimbledon last year may mostly have to do with nagging injuries, but until he wins one of the two non-hard Slams, there may be a tiny little question mark.

Jannik did reach the SF at RG last year, his worst surface, I think he his game suits Grass better, though nagging injuries cost him, I would like to see him do better this year on both surfaces, just not excel on hard courts. Personally speaking he has the ability to do well on these surfaces, he has a great work ethic. My husband thinks he is lendlesque like, maybe because of his demeanor on court, I have to agree.

 

[Vince Evert]

Jannik did reach the SF at RG last year, his worst surface, I think he his game suits Grass better, though nagging injuries cost him, I would like to see him do better this year on both surfaces, just not excel on hard courts. Personally speaking he has the ability to do well on these surfaces, he has a great work ethic. My husband thinks he is lendlesque like, maybe because of his demeanor on court, I have to agree.

Good point. I would tend to agree.
He does remind me of Lendl from the time he took over and dominated the sport, in those years of 1985-1988.

 

[Vince Evert]

Ok, I'll say it. Does anyone else think a Sinner match is extremely boring to watch?

No he's not. Far from it.

and so what part of "Sinners match" or game do you find "boring" ?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Good point. I would tend to agree.
He does remind me of Lendl from the time he took over and dominated the sport, in those years of 1985-1988.

You know a lot of people didnt tend to like Lendl maybe because of his demeanor on court, though as a tennis fan, I prefer to look deeper into what a player brings to the court overall, having a 'mind like a steel trap' helps you, I mean today's game is 80% mental, though I remember Lendl smiling it was quick lol!'
Also Lendl became a great coach and helped Andy Murray no end., winning 3 GS titles and reaching No 1

 

[Vince Evert]

Congrats to Jannik on his decisive straight sets win, remember that Zverev leads their head-to-head at 4-2 matches, going into yesterdays final.

That was really a wonderful moment after the final where he consoled a shattered Zverev.

Great to see the human side of Sinner.

Zverev had to have been bitterly disappointed and frustrated by his return of serve where he did not hold a break-point in two hours, 41 minutes of tennis. Other than his ROS strategies, Alexander played his best and was unlucky to loose the second set which could have developed into a classic battle.

Their winners and UE tells the story.

Sinner 32 winners and 27 unforced errors.
Zverev 25 winners but 45 unforced errors.

more stats courtesy of flashscore-

https://www.flashscore.com.au/match/zXV1Q0qd/#/match-summary/match-statistics/0

 

[Vince Evert]

You know a lot of people didnt tend to like Lendl maybe because of his demeanor on court, though as a tennis fan, I prefer to look deeper into what a player brings to the court overall, having a 'mind like a steel trap' helps you, I mean today's game is 80% mental, though I remember Lendl smiling it was quick lol!'
Also Lendl became a great coach and helped Andy Murray no end., winning 3 GS titles and reaching No 1

I think so and you could say the same for Sampras. Although i could never understand why.


I would love to see more players like Sinner, and less of the fist-clenchers that the likes of Channel Nine bombard us with their slo-mo replays and images (usually set to boring modern music) and pictures.

 

[mrzz]

No he's not. Far from it.

and so what part of "Sinners match" or game do you find "boring" ?

Good question. It is just the predictability of it, I guess. I know he is a very fine player (to say the very least), don't get me wrong. Maybe he is too efficient... Anyway, @Kieran 's post above is a very fitting description of his game.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I think so and you could say the same for Sampras. Although i could never understand why.


I would love to see more players like Sinner, and less of the fist-clenchers that the likes of Channel Nine bombard us with their slo-mo replays and images (usually set to boring modern music) and pictures.

I prefer channel 7's coverage of the tennis when they had it Vince, Channel 9 after this year at the AO coverage was just poor in a lot of factors, they employ good looking men and woman who have no idea of tennis full stop,

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I think so and you could say the same for Sampras. Although i could never understand why.


I would love to see more players like Sinner, and less of the fist-clenchers that the likes of Channel Nine bombard us with their slo-mo replays and images (usually set to boring modern music) and pictures.

I wasnt a Sampras fan, AP will come after me now for sure lol! I found him boring, though he was a top line tennis player, thank goodness my hubby isnt around he was a Big Sampras fan and saw him play live at Wimbledon and the USO, he might start divorce proceedings against me if he read I called Pete 'boring'
You know at the end of the day it is a fans personal opinion of a player and how they can relate to them, we cant all like all the players
I mean I would rather watch paint dry than ever watch a Isner match, I also find Zverev's game boring, I only watch him when he plays one of my favorite players

 

[Vince Evert]

I prefer channel 7's coverage of the tennis when they had it Vince, Channel 9 after this year at the AO coverage was just poor in a lot of factors, they employ good looking men and woman who have no idea of tennis full stop,

They've made the AO over the top and there are also too many "talking heads" all unnecessary.

It'll be better with their broadcast of French, Wimbledon and U S Open where it's just 2 or three at the helm, usually Todd Woodbridge and Jelena.

 

[El Dude]

Jannik did reach the SF at RG last year, his worst surface, I think he his game suits Grass better, though nagging injuries cost him, I would like to see him do better this year on both surfaces, just not excel on hard courts. Personally speaking he has the ability to do well on these surfaces, he has a great work ethic. My husband thinks he is lendlesque like, maybe because of his demeanor on court, I have to agree.

Part of what made me think of Lendl was the very high floor. Memory and collective mythology tends to think of McEnroe and Borg, or Sampras too, as greater players than Lendl, but Lendl's actual record was similarly impressive and I've long made the argument that he belongs to be grouped with those three and just ahead of Connors, with a big gap to Agassi et al.

But Lendl rarely played poorly - at least during his very best years. Even though he never won Wimbledon, he was stronger on grass than, say, Pete was on clay. 5 SFs and 2 Fs is no small potatoes.

When Sinner is playing close to his best, the only player right now that can beat him is Carlos Alcaraz - and only when Alcaraz is playing his very best. I think the problem for everyone else is that Jannik rarely shows up and plays significantly below what he's capable of - at least over the last 8 months or so. We'll see how long he can keep this up, though.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more. There was a period of time for Lendl, from the US Open in 1984 through the end of 1987--over three full seasons--in which he never went two tournaments without reaching a final. It is a crazy level of consistency. I checked other players and I think Novak and Roger are the only players to go over two years - and they missed Lendl's span by a good full season or so. I don't expect Sinner to match that, but he has a bit of that vibe right now.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Part of what made me think of Lendl was the very high floor. Memory and collective mythology tends to think of McEnroe and Borg, or Sampras too, as greater players than Lendl, but Lendl's actual record was similarly impressive and I've long made the argument that he belongs to be grouped with those three and just ahead of Connors, with a big gap to Agassi et al.

But Lendl rarely played poorly - at least during his very best years. Even though he never won Wimbledon, he was stronger on grass than, say, Pete was on clay. 5 SFs and 2 Fs is no small potatoes.

When Sinner is playing close to his best, the only player right now that can beat him is Carlos Alcaraz - and only when Alcaraz is playing his very best. I think the problem for everyone else is that Jannik rarely shows up and plays significantly below what he's capable of - at least over the last 8 months or so. We'll see how long he can keep this up, though.

Quite frankly it will be hard for Jannik to repeat what he did in 2024, so if he does dip I am not going to be over concerned, also we dont know if he will be banned/or for how long his court case is in April.
It was a clinical display of tennis from Jannik in the final, not facing a BP, also defending your title I feel is harder than winning it.