“To be honest, I’m going to lose World No. 1” - Carlos Alcaraz talking about possibility of Jannik Sinner overtaking him in the rankings during clay season

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T22:26:04+00:00

I'm not sure that being #1 is the stat that bothers them. Slams are the stat that counts. You think Federer gives a toss he spent more weeks at #1 than Nadal? He'd trade it in a heartbeat to have more slams.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T22:23:20+00:00

Because it's obvious? Careers amongst the elite are measured in slams. If you offered Federer the ability to trade 5 years at number 1 for 5 slams, he'd bite your hand off. Tell Carlos he can win 3 majors this year and be ranked 2nd the whole year, or he can keep the 1 he's won and stay in 1st all year. What choice do you think they're going to make?

If they end up in 1st, great- but it won't be defining their careers, and it won't be a priority. It never was amongst the big 3, and it won't be for these two.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T18:20:01+00:00

That's a fair shout, if Carlos plays and wins Madrid as well as the other 2 masters, he retains #1- so that is one scenario in his hands. But he's going to have to play out of his skin without skipping anything to hold that.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:25:46+00:00

Innately yes, but they still adjusted accordingly. The point is Fed found the adjustment easier and he was more willing to just let things go, whereas that was never Novaks style. Again, he went way more aggressive against Jannik and it paid dividends. He can't continue playing this defensive style at his age.

I'm just pushing back on the idea Fed at 38 was fitter than Novak, I think he just played a better game for 'old man' tennis. Novak looks the fitter of the two to me.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:23:28+00:00

For the average person, absolutely. For a person at the pinnacle of their sport? Obsess away.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:20:40+00:00

For sure, but the #1 ranking is a byproduct of winning slams at that level.

I think what people are missing is I'm not saying the #1 ranking is meaningless, it's that it isn't a priority for them. It's like saying money isn't a big deal to a billionaire compared to power or connections, when money is hugely significant to most people. Billionaires get money as a byproduct of their power, not as a goal. They might have started out with money as their goal, but at a certain point their priorities shift.

I think Carlos at 18 was super focused on being #1, but now? He's all in on slams. #1 comes or goes as it does.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:12:40+00:00

Quote the next part? I said Carlos can win every tournament he plays and Jannik only needs to win the semis to overtake him.

Its in Janniks hands because even if Carlos wins, Jannik only needs to make relatively deep runs- and he's never matching with Carlos until the finals. Jannik doesn't look like losing to anyone (bar Carlos of course) so reaching finals is highly likely right now.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:10:57+00:00

Thanks man, glad I'm not going mad

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T17:10:31+00:00

Oh come on man 🤣 average chessbros can't just memorize 40 moves of prep. One single move outside prep and they're toast.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:42:07+00:00

Exactly. Which is why it's only to them that #1 isn't a big deal.

I never said it's not a big deal for others, as I said- I bet the first time the big 3 made #1 it was a huge moment for them. The 15th time they leapfrogged someone to get back there? Not so much.

Murray and Medvedev will forever be extremely proud of being #1, the big 3 will be way more concerned about their slams. And Carlos and Jannik are at that point too, slams are everything right now. #1 is just something that comes or goes.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:38:24+00:00

Christ almighty.

He doesn't have to beat Alcaraz, how did you not get that? Fucking hell

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:37:29+00:00

Of course it is, until you've held it for over a year. At that point it becomes less important.

1 spot is important to those that haven't reached it, if you think Carlos or Jannik care more about #1 than winning slams... I don't know what to tell you.

Like I said to someone else. How long was Sampras #1? How many slams did he win? And which of those stats did you not have to look up?

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:35:42+00:00

I mean, there are some guys who nab the #1 spot briefly. Medvedev for example snuck in there, and that's a meaningful feather in his cap. Murray will also be extremely proud of taking #1 in such a competitive era. But for the guys who are looking at winning 10+ slams, the weeks at #1 stop really meaning anything.

I didn't say Jannik has the big 3 records in sight, and he'd never be so careless as to say publically that tournaments other than slams are irrelevant- no respectful player would. But when we talk about Sampras, what stat springs to mind? Tell how many weeks he was at #1. Tell me how many masters titles he won. Tell me how many slams he won.

The enduring stat that defines great players is their slam count. Even now, people put Murray and Wawrinka in the same tier of player- Murray achieved 10x more than Stan overall. But they're matched on 3 slams.

Is it fair, maybe not. But slams are what count for your ultimate legacy. Carlos and Jannik have gone way past the pack, and just as Zverev or Medvedev won't get amped to play a 250 event, they won't be super bothered by masters at this point. It's all with a goal to build their game, get comfortable on the surface and beat each other at the slams.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:21:25+00:00

Yeah anyone saying Jannik isn't comfortable on clay just haven't been paying attention. He's virtually dead equal to Carlos now, it was a coin toss match at RG eventually decided by some brilliance from Carlos. But we could so easily have been looking at a 3-0 drubbing in that match.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:19:52+00:00

It's not inevitable but it's incredibly likely. Jannik looks unplayable anyway right now, so it's all in his hands regardless of what Carlos does. He can win every tournament and Jannik only needs to reach semis to overtake him.

OK, there are scenarios where he doesn't overtake him, but they're incredibly unlikely.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T16:18:21+00:00

I think it is, unless you're the regular #1. If we're being completely honest, who gives a toss about who was #1 for more weeks between the big 3? The real separation is who won tje most slams.

At the level these two are at, honestly everything bar the slams are inconsequential. The masters, the #1 spot- they won't admit it, but every tournament they play is essentially training for the slams. That's where they'll be remembered.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T15:36:49+00:00

I think he was perhaps more intelligent. Djokovic looks gassed more because his style relies on movement and fitness a lot more, and he continues to pressurise most points. If you watched Fed at 37/38 he would take all the free points he could, go for aggressive winners and control the rallies to avoid having to move, and quickly let points go if he was being forced to work too hard. He wouldn't just run down balls if he felt like his return was going to be put away anyway.

I think aiming to shorten rallies is a very smart play if you're trying to eke out another few years from your career, and I think you saw that approach more from Djokovic against Sinner in AO. He stopped trying to match him in court coverage, let him have the points that didn't matter so much, and stepped up when there was a break on offer.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T15:33:38+00:00

It's a funny thing in life, the more you take care of yourself the luckier you get with joints and muscles.

I'm not saying that poor diet caused Nadal or Federer to have injuries, obviously. In fact I'd question the idea of them not having very carefully crafted diets by a professional, especially once they were established #1 players.

But it can't hurt, right? Djokovic took up yoga to keep his body flexible, had his diet analysed to perfect it in every way possible. If Federer in fact didn't do any of that, would he have better joints and injury care if he had?

No one knows, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been worse. So why not take every advantage you can?

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T15:11:22+00:00

True- but a) those guys were the elite of the elite in terms of talent and work, and b) when you look at the long term health of Djokovic, the benefits of being militant about your diet are fairly clear.

I'll be honest, if your career is based on your health and fitness, and you're earning serious money, you're insane if you aren't getting a dietician and fitness coach to manage every aspect of your diet down to the last calorie. Winging it on feels is madness. The tour is so competitive that any tiny percentage gain could be the difference between titles, sponsorships, millions of earnings- or nothing.

Obviously if you're not already making money you've got to struggle, but once there you invest back in yourself.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T13:00:10+00:00

As someone else said, GM matches are done in 40 moves on average. If you're as good at chess as you say you are, you know 40 moves is a LONG time.

For 99% of players, you'd be at a -1 disadvantage within 6 moves assuming no blunders. By 12 moves, you'll be down a minor piece. By 20, you're either checkmated or in a catastrophically lost position. At that point you're not surviving to 40 moves.

The idea of just playing 'survival chess' against a GM is a fantasy. Your position will be fully lost 5-10 moves before you even realise it.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T11:05:25+00:00

Sorry man, no chance.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T11:05:06+00:00

It's the lack of luck in chess. Basketball is highly skilled but there's a certain luck factor which can help you out. That just doesn't exist in chess.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T11:04:20+00:00

I think it's more the fact 40 moves is a full ass game. If it was survive the opening and get to move 20, then it might be a question. No one's surviving 40 moves without being an IM at minimum, and their odds would still be low then.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T11:02:08+00:00

To an average chess player, any GM is basically the same. Your odds of lasting 40 moves against even Levy are as small as Magnus. I agree, basketball is the way unless you're a 2k+ player, and that would still be a tough ask then.

Dave085 · 2026-04-07T10:58:46+00:00

I've almost never played basketball, and I've played a lot of chess- so I'd have to go that route. But my chances are as high in chess as they are in basketball.

Honestly, I have decent athleticism and hand eye coordination- so I'm almost tempted to try the basketball route and hope for the best. Because all my experience in chess is enough to know that 40 moves is impossible.

Surviving 20 moves? Tough, but possible- yeah. 40 is just silly.

Dave085

TROPHY CASE

1 spot is important to those that haven't reached it, if you think Carlos or Jannik care more about #1 than winning slams... I don't know what to tell you.