On 1/02/2026 11:58 pm, *skriptis wrote:

Perfect final score, 10-0.
10-1 is better, but 10-0 was prettier.

Now with 14-0, Nadal is truly alone and unique in a single slam domination. Djokovic has his perfection elsewhere (winning everything topping it with Olympics).

Sampras with 7-0 is a distant second perfect now.

As for this final, you can't say much, clear win for Alcaraz, perhaps if anything, Djokovic started too strong, it was superb, out of this world, even better than semi so it was unreal, but that set which he won kinda gassed him for another 2 sets, so in a sense it was phyrricly won set, too much energy spent for mere 1-0 lead if it kinda means you lose next two, wasn't worth it.

He recovered for the 4th set, that set resembled most the SF. Near the end of it he saved 0-40 in one game, and had a break point himself at 4-4. Sure it was redlining again, we can't expect that all the time but that was his level in these 2 matches that was needed and which it wasn't too much for him.

I believed he would have a chance in the fifth, however he was unlucky to both play and lose that long point at 5-6 to go 0-15 pts down. It was a double bad. Losing a point and it drained him and wrecked him for minute or so, long enough to lose serve, and match.

Alcaraz won that game on first break/match point, it didn't feel the game was even contested. It's one of those service games you lose/break quickly and easily.

I guess Alcaraz deliberately went for a longer exchange at the start of the game? Sort of investment into break. Definitely smart if he did it on purpose once the ball was in play. It won him the break, set and match.

So much for him not thinking?

I wonder if Djokovic now feels he took the bait, with his experience I wonder if such moments are analysed and do they seem important for these players? I feel it was the key to securing a break.

Maybe I'm overthinking it.

Had Djokovic served that out I would have still given Alcaraz 80% in tiebreak anyway, and less, probably around 60% in fifth set.

But not serving that out, meant match was over.

Great match from Novak. I think he approached it the right way. Yes in hindsight you can always say 'what if' etc, but I think he believed he
needed to win 1st set to have a good chance, and that worked
brilliantly. He hit deep up the middle of the court to deprive Carlos
of the angles he loves, and went for winners 1st chance he got. I was
happy for either guy, but leaned to Novak because I don't see him
getting a better chance for 25 than this. He got a couple breaks with Mensik/Musetti, which allowed him to be fresh for Sinner. That win was incredible as Sinner was playing his usual top level, Novak willed
himself to victory. Novak beat Carlos here last year and Sinner this
year, great effort at his age and he's made his point.

Zverev fucked up by not winning the 4th set v Carlos quicker, should
have been able to get 6-1. That wouldn't have given Carlos enough time
to recover from cramps and Zverev would have made the final and most
likely lost to Novak. Fine margins.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2/1/26 4:58 AM, *skriptis wrote:

Perfect final score, 10-0.
10-1 is better, but 10-0 was prettier.

Now with 14-0, Nadal is truly alone and unique in a single slam domination. Djokovic has his perfection elsewhere (winning everything topping it with Olympics).

Sampras with 7-0 is a distant second perfect now.

As for this final, you can't say much, clear win for Alcaraz, perhaps if anything, Djokovic started too strong, it was superb, out of this world, even better than semi so it was unreal, but that set which he won kinda gassed him for another 2 sets, so in a sense it was phyrricly won set, too much energy spent for mere 1-0 lead if it kinda means you lose next two, wasn't worth it.

He recovered for the 4th set, that set resembled most the SF. Near the end of it he saved 0-40 in one game, and had a break point himself at 4-4. Sure it was redlining again, we can't expect that all the time but that was his level in these 2 matches that was needed and which it wasn't too much for him.

I believed he would have a chance in the fifth, however he was unlucky to both play and lose that long point at 5-6 to go 0-15 pts down. It was a double bad. Losing a point and it drained him and wrecked him for minute or so, long enough to lose serve, and match.

Alcaraz won that game on first break/match point, it didn't feel the game was even contested. It's one of those service games you lose/break quickly and easily.

I guess Alcaraz deliberately went for a longer exchange at the start of the game? Sort of investment into break. Definitely smart if he did it on purpose once the ball was in play. It won him the break, set and match.

So much for him not thinking?

I wonder if Djokovic now feels he took the bait, with his experience I wonder if such moments are analysed and do they seem important for these players? I feel it was the key to securing a break.

Maybe I'm overthinking it.

Maybe.

Had Djokovic served that out I would have still given Alcaraz 80% in tiebreak anyway, and less, probably around 60% in fifth set.

But not serving that out, meant match was over.

--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)