Connect with us

Culture

Alcaraz and Sinner were the future of men's tennis. Now, they are its present

Published

on

Alcaraz and Sinner were the future of men's tennis. Now, they are its present

Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz have been the future of men’s tennis for a little while already.

Their first meeting, at the Paris Masters in October 2021, gave a glimpse into the highlight-reel tennis the pair produce when sharing a court.

The following year, there was a hugely exciting match in the Wimbledon round of 16 that caught the eye of the casual tennis watcher, followed by an entertaining final in Umag, Croatia, and then the late night/early morning barnstormer at the U.S. Open that announced their brand of tennis as the next great thing at the top of the sport. Then came the seminal Miami Open semifinal in 2023, then another classic in Indian Wells in 2024.

They did all this in long shadows. First two, and then increasingly one — those of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Even as they won their first Grand Slam titles, Alcaraz two and Sinner one, both beating Djokovic along the way, the mythos created by 20 years of domination hung over them.

As they stepped on to the red clay of Roland Garros on Friday, that mythos had lifted. And in a see-saw French Open semi-final that Alcaraz edged in five sets to reach the French Open final, it was he who moved a step ahead of his opponent in what is looking like being a similarly see-saw rivalry.

Advertisement

Their Roland Garros semi-final was another seesawing match. (Emmanuel Dunand / AFP via Getty Images)

With Djokovic expected to miss at least Wimbledon following knee surgery, suddenly this is not just a rivalry in men’s tennis, but the rivalry in men’s tennis. They are the two best (fit) players by a distance, with Sinner to be anointed as world No 1 in mere days and Alcaraz on the heels of the stricken Djokovic, ready to overtake him as world No 2.

This is one of those tennis quirks: the match that feels like a final but isn’t one, because of the way the draw has panned out. On the other side of the draw, Casper Ruud faces Alexander Zverev — Ruud, a two-time French Open finalist and Zverev, the form player in the last few months — but Sinner and Alcaraz have been operating at a different level the last year or so (longer, in Alcaraz’s case).

It’s early days in the rivalry, but there are a few things to assess already. It should be close, with both men winning four of their first eight matches against one another, before Alcaraz triumphed 2-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 at Roland Garros to move into the French Open final.

This is not like the early stages of the Roger Federer-Nadal rivalry, which began with the latter winning six of their first seven encounters, or the one going on between two of the best women’s players in the world, with Iga Swiatek leading Coco Gauff 11-1 in their head-to-head.


Carlos Alcaraz prevailed to move 5-4 up in the head-to-head. (Tim Goode / Getty Images)

Nor does there appear to be a surface issue for either player against the other. Alcaraz has wins on indoor and outdoor hard, Sinner on outdoor hard, grass and clay. But they’ve only met once on those latter two surfaces and Alcaraz became Wimbledon champion in 2023 after four matches at SW19 the year prior, and also won at Queen’s. The clay rivalry, too, should be close if Alcaraz can emulate what he did on the slow hard courts Indian Wells, using his ability to vary spin, speed, and depth to throw Sinner off the metronomic, bludgeoning consistency that is a hallmark of his baseline tennis.

Advertisement

This was, ultimately, how things played out on Friday, with Alcaraz’s win making it one victory apiece on clay. Sinner led by two sets to one, but some mesmerising lobs and drop shots, coupled with impossible-looking winners from the baseline, eventually swung the match in Alcaraz’s favour.

The closeness in their head-to-head is mirrored by the closeness of their relationship. They are not best friends off the court — few tennis players are with one another — but they get on very well and love playing against each other. How long that will endure as they face off over time and the stakes get higher is another question, and it was interesting to see the differing dynamics pre-match on Friday compared to how friendly they were together while waiting to enter the court for that Indian Wells semifinal.

On that occasion they greeted each other as if meeting at a cocktail party; on Friday in the tunnel before going on Chatrier, the mood was altogether different. There was a handshake, followed by as serious an expression as you get from Alcaraz, and then both men found their own space and started going through their routines.

This was strictly business. Previously, there’s been an almost exhibition feeling to some of their encounters.


Carlos Alcaraz applauded his rival off after the match. (Tim Goode / Getty Images)

After that first meeting at the Paris Masters, a defeated Sinner said to Alcaraz: “I hope we play a couple more times.” A beaming Alcaraz responded: “Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.”

Advertisement

Something happens when they play each other — there’s an electricity and a chemistry that sees both players raise the other’s game. In the Indian Wells semifinal in March, there was a sweet moment when after a mind-bending rally that Sinner somehow won, the pair looked at each other and laughed. It was as if they were saying, “Would you look at what we just did?” It, and other on-court interactions the pair have had, give off the feeling you sometimes get in life when meeting a kindred spirit. Wait, you like that band too? You support that team as well? You can also sprint at full pelt and then somehow flick away an angled crosscourt forehand?

“I am quite fast already, and he is much faster than me,” Sinner has said of Alcaraz, sounding like someone who is excited to have finally met their match.

This mutual improvement was a hallmark of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic triumvirate. Nadal dominated Federer, so Federer figured out how to beat him. Nadal figured out grass. Djokovic figured out clay. Their finals, some of the greatest matches men’s tennis has ever seen, demonstrated this in real time, forcing each other to even greater heights and creating a closed-loop training camp that took them further and further away from the field below.


Time will tell if the rivalry takes each player to greater heights (Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)

Who knows whether Alcaraz and Sinner retain their fondness for one another if the rivalry becomes less even, either in the head-to-head or in the number of Grand Slams won, or both.

They seem to genuinely enjoy the way the other raises their game. This is not like Federer admitting in the 2018 documentary Strokes of Genius that, rather than welcoming the threat Nadal posed when he burst onto the scene, he was much happier winning major titles pretty much unopposed, thank you very much.

Advertisement

It’s hard to see either Sinner or Alcaraz streaking away from the other and there are cases to be made for either having the upper hand. Alcaraz is better at changing things up to suit the surface, whereas Sinner typically plays his own game and makes the surface almost irrelevant. This works almost all of the time against pretty much everyone, apart from Alcaraz and Djokovic, and it didn’t work all that well in Paris, with Alcaraz’s greater variety making the difference.

In Sinner’s favour is his momentum, which although checked, has taken him past Alcaraz to claim the No. 1 spot, as of Monday, as Alcaraz predicted would happen back in November at the ATP Finals, where Sinner reached the final. But now Alcaraz is the one into another Grand Slam final, on course to have won three of the four with Sinner on one.

It’s tempting to try and say that Friday’s match was somehow definitive or hugely revealing, but that would be a stretch.

Sinner won more total points in the match, but Alcaraz stepped up when it mattered. We’re going to need a much bigger sample size to predict where this rivalry might end up, and there’s a level of pressure that comes with being the flag-bearing rivalry for a sport, as Alcaraz and Sinner suddenly are.

At times on Friday they hit the heights expected; at others there was understandable tension — shown most clearly in the cramps afflicting Sinner in the third set, which Alcaraz said afflicted him too.

Advertisement

Alcaraz said before Friday’s meeting that “it’s the match everybody wants to watch.”

As Djokovic recuperates, it promises to be this way for a while longer.

(Top photo: Dan Istitene / Getty Images)

Culture

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Published

on

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Advertisement

Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.

Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)

This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.

Advertisement

Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:

Advertisement

The More Loving One by W.H. Auden 

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

That, for all they care, I can go to hell, 

But on earth indifference is the least 

Advertisement

We have to dread from man or beast. 

Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet

In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.

Advertisement

Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:

Advertisement

How should we like it were stars to burn 

With a passion for us we could not return? 

If equal affection cannot be, 

Let the more loving one be me. 

Advertisement

Tracy K. Smith, poet

These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.

This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.

Advertisement

The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.

But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:

Advertisement

Admirer as I think I am 

Of stars that do not give a damn, 

I cannot, now I see them, say 

Advertisement

I missed one terribly all day. 

Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist

The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.

Advertisement

The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:

Advertisement

Were all stars to disappear or die, 

I should learn to look at an empty sky 

And feel its total dark sublime, 

Though this might take me a little time. 

Advertisement

Yiyun Li, author

Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.

Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.

Advertisement

The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.

So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.

Advertisement

W.H. Auden in 1962. Sam Falk/The New York Times

When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.

Advertisement

Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.

This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.

Advertisement

So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!

Your first task: Learn the first four lines!

Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.

Question 1/6

Advertisement

Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

Advertisement

That, for all they care, I can go to hell, 

Advertisement

Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.

Advertisement

Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.

Advertisement

Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.

Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.

Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Published

on

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Literature

‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?

Advertisement

“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.

“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.

Advertisement

It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)

Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.

All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.

Advertisement

‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.

Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.

Advertisement

Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:

“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”

Advertisement

The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.

‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.

Advertisement

It’s science fiction. All right?

I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.

“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.

Advertisement

‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”

Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.

Advertisement

We’d all have read it by now — right?

‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.

Advertisement

Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.

Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.

Advertisement

I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.

As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.

It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.

Advertisement

It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).

As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.

Advertisement

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading

Culture

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Published

on

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Literature

‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell

Advertisement

Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.

Galway Kinnell in 1970. Photo by LaVerne Harrell Clark, © 1970 Arizona Board of Regents. Courtesy of the University of Arizona Poetry Center

Advertisement

“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”

“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”

Advertisement

Lucille Clifton in 1995. Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images

“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”

Advertisement

‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare

They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

Advertisement

“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”

“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.

“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.

Advertisement

These interviews have been edited and condensed.

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending