Have Aryna Sabalenka and Carlos Alcaraz made themselves the players to beat?

The Break: Breaking down the Italian Open draws

Hi Joel,

Welcome to the new and expanded clay swing. How do you like it? For the first time, we’re spending a full month in Madrid and Rome, bringing those two events to roughly equal status, time-wise, with Indian Wells and Miami. Call them the Masters 1000 Plus Series.

This has been my favorite time of the tennis season since roughly 2006, when Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic elevated the men’s version of it with their duels in Rome, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Madrid and, of course, at Roland Garros. So I don’t mind spending a little extra time at these events. The site of the Foro Italico, in particular, never gets old. And if it makes it more likely that Madrid champions Carlos Alcaraz and Aryna Sabalenka are able to recover in time for Rome, all the better.

Of course, it also leaves time for other, less-flattering stories to percolate. Such as the dumbfounding decision of Madrid officials not to let the women’s doubles finalists speak after their title match, when the men had been given that opportunity. The tournament’s former owner, Ion Tiriac, has been lambasted for sexist comments in the past, and those memories came back after this incident. By Monday, it had overshadowed a fine final weekend of play. The one positive about the situation, to me, is that it also showcased a group of women—Victoria Azarenka, Coco Gauff, Jessica Pegula—who aren’t afraid to let their aggravation about the snub be known, to demand better, and to be backed up across the board.

Still, Alcaraz and Sabalenka were the story of the week. What did you take away from the play of those two, Joel? For me, Alcaraz was as electric as always, but it was Sabalenka’s mix of power and poise that was the revelation. She has obviously been competing that way all year, but her ability to out-hit Iga Swiatek, and fend off a fierce comeback from the WTA No. 1 in the third set, felt like a new peak for her. I love seeing players put their mental baggage behind them and make themselves into better competitors, in part because I know how difficult it is to do.

Hi Steve,

Indeed, it’s quite interesting to see Madrid and Rome blossom into 96-player events that take up two weeks on the calendar. This robust combination platter adds a new level of significance to the clay-court season. I’m curious to see what the implications will be for other clay court events—perhaps Monte Carlo most of all. Will players continue to have the appetite to compete in three Masters 1000 events prior to arriving at Roland Garros? But enough of off-court machinations.

Let me reinforce your thoughts on Sabalenka. As you mentioned, all year long she has been playing great tennis. I’ll admit that while of course initially impressed by Sabalenka’s baseline power, I was never quite sure if she’d be able to put all the pieces together and be something more than a streaky contender. I’m glad to have been proven wrong. It’s refreshing to see a player who was already in the Top 10 upgrade her game and feel more comfortable on high-stakes occasions.

A skilled age group player I know recently told me that her coach has advised her to “look for forehands.” I’d never heard those words before —and they are so useful in understanding how any player should seek to take charge of rallies, be it with a particular stroke or tactic.

Sabalenka did that magnificently versus Swiatek. To overpower someone who moves as well on clay as Swiatek is a formidable task. But again and again in the Madrid final, Sabalenka struck the ball deep and hard, frequently crosscourt to apply pressure, then down-the-line to close out many a rally. Proof that it was a high-quality effort from both players: each won more than 50 percent of her second-serve points—59 percent for Swiatek, 57 percent for Sabalenka.

As far as Alcaraz goes, he is arguably the most polished, versatile and poised 20-year-old in tennis history. I think back to other teen Slam winners, from Ken Rosewall in the ‘50s, on through to Bjorn Borg in the ‘70s, Mats Wilander and Boris Becker in the ‘80s, Pete Sampras in the ‘90s, Rafael Nadal in the ‘00s. All were great early on, but none had as much stylistic breadth and proficiency as Alcaraz has already shown.

How is that possible? The answer: It is, which says much about the unscientific randomness of player development. One day, and perhaps this day may never come, we will gain extensive, in-depth knowledge of how Alcaraz went about building such a wide range of shots. It’s breathtaking and I know I’m not the only tennis aficionado keen to take in more.

Steve, besides the two Madrid winners, who else has impressed you this clay-court season?

Joel,

“Looking for forehands,” is an apt summary of what the pro game, and especially the men’s pro game, has evolved into over the last five or so years. Everything, including the serve, is designed to get a player a look at an offensive forehand, preferably an inside-out forehand. While Sabalenka has an excellent backhand—sometimes I think it’s her best shot—she has brought a serve-forehand game to the women’s side. I recently talked to a few junior coaches who say she’s already having an influence on how they teach the sport to their young girl students.

As far as what has impressed me this clay-court season, I go to the surprise runs that Jan-Lennard Struff and Zhizhen Zhang made in Madrid. Struff, a lucky loser, won five straight three-setters, and pushed Alcaraz to a decider in the final. Zhang, meanwhile, won three straight third-set tiebreakers over seeded opponents. Normally, I might not gravitate to either player, but Struff’s net-rushing attack, and Zhang’s relentless energy and positivity, hooked me. It’s another example of how the core appeal of tennis is about matches, and quality of play, as much as it is about star-power.

The interesting thing to me as we head to Rome, and start to glimpse Paris on the horizon, is whether Alcaraz and Sabalenka have made themselves the players to beat, or whether there’s another twist in the clay-season plot to come. Djokovic will reappear this week, and historically Rome is where he does the lion’s share of his Roland Garros preparation; he could use a deep run after a middling spring. Rome is also where Swiatek ramps her game up; she’s the two-time defending champion, and has dropped just one set during that time. And then, of course, we have have one more character, the most important character of all, who will presumably make a last-second entrance at Roland Garros: Nadal.

First, though, I’m looking forward to 12 days in Rome. I remember the Italian Open of my youth as a tournament that was more than a mere tune-up for Paris; it had its own (often maniacal) personality. Maybe this new, super-sized version will give it back a little of that gravitas. Even thousands of miles away, there’s no setting like the Foro Italico, and it’s the rare classic venue that has only been improved as it has been modernized.

How about you, Joel, what have you liked or noticed during the clay swing, and what will you look for in Rome?

Steve,

My longstanding belief is that the player who rules the game initially creates a template for his or her own success—but also, for those who dig deeper, a problem statement that can be an opportunity for self-exploration and the development of new skills and accompanying tactics.

It’s tennis legend by now about the way Nadal’s crosscourt forehand compelled Roger Federer to improve his backhand and deploy it more aggressively. Or, more than a decade ago, how the high-level skills displayed by Nadal and Federer inspired Djokovic to upgrade his fitness. Or Chrissie Evert’s impact on Martina Navratilova (and vice versa). On it goes.

So what I’m enjoying during this clay season is how Swiatek and Alcaraz have inspired many to both improve and broaden their respective lines of attack. We’ve already addressed Sabalenka, so now let’s tip our hat to Struff, a veteran who in Madrid was able to effectively channel his aggression and land just one set short of becoming the first lucky loser to win a Masters 1000 event. Most impressive was the array of aggressive tactics that Struff trotted out. Because the top player says this: your usual game won’t be enough. And so, the chance to apply one of my favorite phrases: find another way to lose.

Though certainly not on the plane of a Grand Slam event, these two-week, 96-player events such as Madrid and Rome offer a longer plotline than a typical one-week event. The latter can often come off as compressed and hurried.

But over the course of two weeks and a larger field, there are more opportunities for engaging, early-round drama and certain stories to unfold. Madrid featured a tremendous third-round match between two feisty competitors, Holger Rune and Alejandro Davidovich Fokina, won by the Spaniard in a third-set tiebreaker. On the women’s side, I enjoyed seeing Mayar Sherif earn wins over such veterans as Camila Giorgi, Caroline Garcia and Elise Mertens and push Sabalenka to three sets in their quarterfinal match.

Do I think Davidovich Fokina or Sherif can win Roland Garros? Likely not. But the point is that just as the rallies on clay are longer than anywhere, so is the buildup to Roland Garros. So here’s the chance to enjoy a wide spectrum of players and the many ways they construct points, compete, and recover. As a journalist, it’s easy to get caught up in the stories of the potential title winners. But as a fan, it’s different. Heck, nearly 50 years later, I vividly recall a quarterfinal match I once watched inside UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion between Raul Ramirez and Marty Riessen.

But getting back to where I started, perhaps this is what I’m excited to see more of this clay-court season: drop shots and volleys. Thank you, Carlos and Iga, for inspiring everyone.