Jannik Sinner acknowledged that his game isn’t good enough—a scary thought

Jannik Sinner may have failed to deliver on the expectations of many, including his own, in the recent US Open final. But in his post-final press briefing, he delivered a startlingly transparent—and completely unexpected—assessment of his shortcomings.

This is something Grand Slam champions simply do not do when relegated to the co-pilot seat. And it speaks to the evolution of the game.

“I was very predictable today,” Sinner said, teeing up what would develop into a monologue of sorts—one that seemed out of character for the shy, 24-year-old, already four-time major champion. “On the court, he (Carlos Alcaraz) did many things, he changed up the game. That’s also his style of how he plays. Now it’s going to be on me if I want to make changes or not.”

It was an accurate assessment, the meat of which we’ll take a closer look at later. But contrast the essence of those words with one of the most famous pronouncements in tennis history, made by Jimmy Connors in 1978 after he lost his second consecutive Wimbledon final to nemesis Bjorn Borg: “I’ll follow him to the ends of the earth,” Connors declared, in a headline generating promise.

But meanwhile, Connors spurned questions about the glaring hole in his game, his weak forehand approach shot. My forehand, weak? You want to go out and exchange forehands with me, he snarled at told one reporter.

One thing is, when the scorelines of [previous] matches are comfortable but you always do the same things [it’s dangerous]. I’m going to aim to do some changes, trying to be a bit more unpredictable. Jannik Sinner

Sure, Connors was an often boorish hothead. But consider gentleman Roger Federer’s bland reaction in 2008, when Rafael Nadal demolished him for the third Roland Garros final, allowing the world No. 1 just four games in three sets: “I was hoping for a better outcome, no doubt, you know,” Federer said. “But Rafa played well today, made it hard for me, and, yeah, was better.”

Asked to analyze the match, Federer replied, “Look, it doesn’t matter now what happened, you know. I mean, the match is over; clay-court season is over. I’m just here to answer some questions, not to analyze the match. I wish it was a different outcome.”

Granted, besting Nadal on Parisian clay has probably been the toughest assignment in tennis. But Federer was just following the conventional wisdom to avoid the confession of a weakness at all costs, or a need to make changes. Most elite champions prefer to die with their boots on, their self-affirming mantra always the same platitude: “I just need to play my game, it’s good enough to beat anyone.”

Well, Sinner seemed to acknowledge in New York, it will not.

It’s a different game now. It demands greater watchfulness, flexibility and a constant willingness to make tweaks and changes—even from those at the pinnacle of the sport. This is why the upcoming clashes between Sinner and Alcaraz in 2026 are so promising. But don’t expect striking, visible changes. The hard work will be done at the margins of technique and conception.

Sinner’s avowal of “predictability” in New York was just the tip of a verbal iceberg. He went on to provide a laundry list of things he did not do during his matches—attacking the net, employing slice and drop shots—which left him unprepared to deal with the dazzling variety Alcaraz used to yank Sinner out of his comfort zone. No mean feat, that.

Sinner said that he’s willing to take some losses as he tries to round out his game and expand his palette. It’s partly because, in addition to his Alcaraz problem (their latest clash saw the Spaniard supplant the Italian for No. 1, and take a 10-5 lead in their head-to-head), Sinner simply wants to be a better tennis player. It’s something he’s often said even in happier times, during the 27-match hard court winning streak he carried into the US Open final.

Sinner recognizes the danger in complacency. He said: “One thing is, when the scorelines of [previous] matches are comfortable but you always do the same things [it’s dangerous]. I’m going to aim to do some changes, trying to be a bit more unpredictable.”

Keep in mind that even supreme competitors have off days. Based on the stats of the US Open final, Sinner’s predictability was accompanied by atypical inconsistency. He made 28 unforced errors, four more than Alcaraz with his high-risk game. He also hit 20 fewer winners (41-21). Alcaraz won the battle of the basic stats in New York. Yet just weeks earlier at Wimbledon, Sinner had an edge in almost every category.

The larger issue at play here is how each man wins his points.

According to metrics developed by TennisViz in partnership with Tennis Data Innovations (TDI) specifically for ATP broadcasts, Sinner leads the ATP Tour in the “Core Shots” category, which measures standard topspin strokes hit through an opponent’s baseline. Alcaraz doesn’t even appear in the Top 10 on that list. It’s because he doesn’t hit enough coast-to-coast groundstrokes.

🖥️📲Stream Sinner's match with Altmaier in Shanghai LIVE, Saturday, October 4, at 6:30 a.m. ET

Core Shots is but one component in a larger metric and data set called “Shot Variety,” which measures the extent to which a player mixes up tactics—drop shots, volleys, topspin angles, slice. The co-leaders in the category are Daniel Evans and Alexander Bublik, both players hitting roughly 47 percent of their shots with variation.

The data providers do not publish a Shot Variety ranking, or stats for all individuals (their data is proprietary), but an AI trawl by ChatGPT suggests Alcaraz comes out at roughly 30 percent (25–35%) on the variety scale, notably above the tour average, while Sinner’s variety count works out to roughly 20 percent (18-22%) of his shots. That’s right around the tour average.

It’s also legitimate to ask if Sinner isn’t just overreacting to his recent Grand Slam loss: Did he expect to beat Alcaraz with those stats that Sunday afternoon? Besides, incorporating greater variety doesn’t guarantee greater success, and it may even play into Alcaraz’s hands. The Sinner camp must be thinking long and hard about this.

Nevertheless, Sinner appears to have crossed a Rubicon. He began expanding his palette in his first post-US Open appearance last week, in Beijing (which he won). After dropping a set in his second-round win over Terence Atmane, he admitted, “At this moment, I’m spending a lot of mental energy. Today it was 80 percent me (my usual tennis) and 20 percent new things (mainly having to do with his serve).

“Maybe I should do 95 percent my tennis and 5 percent experiments, and do them in quieter moments. But there are so many positive things and it’s part of the process.”

This is a new era in tennis. The long tradition of Grand Slam champions who live in regal denial about vulnerabilities, or are loath to look weak by admitting to them, may be coming to an end. The margins between success and failure, between the good and the great, grow ever slimmer—and Jannik Sinner is leading the charge into this future.