Culture
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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)
At 53, and after more than a decade in the industry, things are happening for the romance writer Kennedy Ryan that were not on her bingo card.
The most recent: a first look deal with Universal Studio Group that will allow her to develop various projects, including a Peacock adaptation of her breakout 2022 novel “Before I Let Go,” the first book in her Skyland trilogy, which considers love and friendship among three Black women in a community inspired by contemporary Atlanta.
With a TV series in development, Ryan — who published her debut novel in 2014 and subsequently self-published — joins Tia Williams and Alanna Bennett at a table with few other Black romance writers.
“What I am most excited about is the opportunity to identify other authors’ work, especially marginalized authors, and to shepherd those projects from book to screen,” said Ryan, a former journalist. (Kennedy Ryan is a pen name.) “We are seeing an explosion in romance adaptations right now, and I want to see more Black, brown and queer authors.”
Her latest novel, “Score,” is set to publish on Tuesday. It’s the second volume in her Hollywood Renaissance series, after “Reel,” about an actress with a chronic illness who falls for her director on the set of a biopic set during the Harlem Renaissance. The new book follows a screenwriter and a musician, once romantically involved, working on the same movie.
In a recent interview (edited and condensed for clarity), Ryan shared the highs and lows of commercial success; her commitment to happy endings; and her north star. Spoiler: It isn’t what readers think of her books on TikTok.
Your work has been categorized as Black romance, but how do you see yourself as a writer?
I see myself as a romance writer. I think the season that I’m in right now, I’m most interested in Black romance, and that’s what I’ve been writing for the last few years. It doesn’t mean that I won’t write anything else, because I don’t close those doors. But the timeline we’re in is one where I really want to promote Black love, Black art and Black history.
What intrigued you about the period of history you capture in the Hollywood Renaissance series?
I’ve always been fascinated by the Harlem Renaissance and the years immediately following. It felt like a natural era to explore when I was examining overlooked accomplishments by Black creatives. I loved the art as agitation and resistance seen in the lives of people like James Baldwin or Zora Neale Hurston, but also figures like Josephine Baker, Lena Horne and Dorothy Dandridge, who people may not think of as “revolutionary.” The fact that they were even in those spaces was its own act of rebellion.
What about that period feels resonant now?
The series celebrates Black art and Black history and love at a time when I see all three under attack. Our art is being diminished and our history is being erased before our very eyes. I don’t hold back on the relationship between what I see going on in the world and the books I write.
How does this moment in your career feel?
I didn’t get my first book deal until I was in my 40s, so I think this is the best job I’ve ever had. I’m wanting to make the most of it, not just for myself, but for other people, and I think the temptation is to believe that it will all go away because that’s my default.
Why would it all go away?
Part of it is because we — my family, my husband and I — have had some really hard times, especially early in our marriage when my son was diagnosed with autism, my husband lost his job, and we experienced hard times financially. I’ll never forget that.
When I say it could all go away, I mean things change, the industry changes, what people respond to changes, what people buy and want to consume changes. So I don’t assume that what I am doing is always going to be something that people want.
Why are you so firmly committed to defending the “happy ending” in romance novels?
It is integral to the definition of the genre that it ends happily. Some people will say it’s just predictable every one ends happily. I am fine with that, living in a world that is constantly bombarding us with difficulty, with hurt, with challenge.
I write books that are deeply curious about the human condition. In “Score,” the heroine has bipolar disorder, she’s bisexual, there’s all of this intersectionality. For me, there is no safer genre landscape to unpack these issues and these conditions because I know there is guaranteed joy at the end.
You have a pretty active TikTok account. How do you engage with reviews and commentary on the platform about you or the genre?
First of all, I believe that reader spaces are sacred. Sometimes I see authors get embroiled with readers who have criticized them. I never ever comment on critical reviews. I definitely do see the negative. It’s impossible for me not to, but I just kind of ignore it. I let it roll off.
How does this apply to being a very visible Black author in romance?
I am very cognizant of this space that I’m in right now, which is a blessing, and I don’t take it for granted. I see a lot of discourse online where people are like, “Kennedy’s not the only one,” “Why Kennedy?,” “There should be more Black authors.” And I’m like, Oh my God, I know that. I am constantly looking for ways to amplify other Black authors. I want to hold the door open and pull them along.
How do you define success for yourself at this point?
I have a little bit of a mission statement: I want to write stories that will crater in people’s hearts and create transformational moments. Whether it’s television or publishing, am I sticking true to what I feel like is one of the things I was put on this earth to do? I’m a P.K., or preacher’s kid. We’re always thinking about purpose. And for me, how do I fit into this genre? What is my lane? What is my legacy? Which sounds so obnoxious, you know, but legacy is very important to me.
Welcome to Great Adaptations, the Book Review’s regular multiple-choice quiz about printed works that have gone on to find new life as movies, television shows, theatrical productions and more. This week’s challenge highlights the screen adaptations of popular books for middle-grade and young adult readers. Just tap or click your answers to the five questions below. Scroll down after you finish the last question for links to the books and their screen versions.
In an email interview, she talked about why she followed up a memoir with “Poetry Says It Better” — and when and why she leans on the “For Dummies” series. SCOTT HELLER
Describe your ideal reading experience.
Next to a warm fire in a house in the woods. Barring that, at home in bed.
How have your reading tastes changed over time?
When I first began reading, I read fiction. My favorite novel was “The Magic Mountain,” by Thomas Mann. Over the years I find that I am less interested in fiction and more interested in trying to learn about science and mathematics. I love the “For Dummies” series. I remember reading or hearing many years ago, maybe in high school, that the first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form. So, I was thrilled to learn there was such a book as “Thermodynamics for Dummies.” It was interesting reading, but I’m afraid I could not quote you anything from that book.
What’s the best book you’ve ever received as a gift?
I received the “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyám from someone, probably from my first husband, Bill. It stimulated my love of poetry, beautifully illustrated books and also my fascination with the East and the Mideast.
Why write “Poetry Says It Better” rather than, say, a follow-up to your 2006 memoir?
“Poetry Says It Better” has some references to my life, but I feel I wrote enough about myself in my memoir, and I include some of my personal history in this book.
You write that you’ve memorized poems your whole adult life. What’s the last poem you memorized?
I am working on “Shadows,” by D.H. Lawrence. I am trying to get that securely in my memory. Of course, at 93 I am not as good at memorizing as I used to be, or at holding on to what I have already memorized. But it is good exercise for the memory to use it.
You quote a line from Kaveh Akbar: “Art is where what we survive survives.” Why does that line resonate so much for you?
That line is so meaningful to me because I know that the difficult first 18 years of my life is the emotional library I descend into for every part I’ve ever played, and every poem that has landed in my heart.
Of all the characters you’ve played across different media, which role felt the richest — the most novelistic?
I would have to say Lois in “The Last Picture Show.” She was a character I didn’t really understand right away. I had to dig for her. She was multidimensional. I feel literary characters are like that.
What’s the best book about acting, or the life of an actor, you’ve ever read?
I have to name two. “My Life in Art,” by Konstantin Stanislavsky, and “A Dream of Passion,” by Lee Strasberg.
How do you organize your books?
I’ve collected my library for 70 years. All my classic literature is together, on two facing walls in the front of my living room. On the other end of the room, I have my art books. Facing them are my travel and music books. On the fourth wall are some of my science books.
In the large entrance hall, I have one standing bookcase of the complete Carl Jung collection, and near it another bookcase of poetry anthologies. In my kitchen office are all the books about food. Then I have a writing room that contains books of poetry and science, and my Sufi books. In my bedroom are my spiritual and religious books.
What books are on your night stand?
Currently: “Anam Cara: Spiritual Wisdom From the Celtic World,” by John O’Donohue; “Prayers of the Cosmos,” by Neil Douglas Klotz; “The Courage to Create,” by Rollo May; “Radical Love,” by Omid Safi; Pema Chödrön’s “How We Live Is How We Die”; “The Trial of Socrates,” by I.F. Stone; “Our Green Heart: The Soul and Science of Forests,” by Diana Beresford-Kroeger; and “On Living and Dying Well,” by Cicero.
What book might people be surprised to find on your shelves?
Probably Ken Wilber’s “A Brief History of Everything” and Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Future.” These are two of my favorite books. I love to read books on science that are not written for scientists but for curious readers like me.
You’re organizing a literary dinner party. Which three writers, dead or alive, do you invite?
Oh, definitely Mary Oliver, my favorite poet of all time, and Edgar Allan Poe. The thought of those two people talking to each other. Finally, Tennessee Williams, who’s written some of the greatest plays ever.
-
North Dakota11 minutes ago
Behind the Badge – Does Poaching Really Matter?
-
Ohio17 minutes agoWhere to find splash pads, pools in central Ohio during heat wave
-
Oklahoma23 minutes agoNewspaper Deletes Column Comparing the Oklahoma City Thunder to Israel
-
Oregon29 minutes ago
Oregon Lottery Powerball, Pick 4 results for May 18
-
Rhode Island41 minutes agoRI Philharmonic announces 2026 Summer Pops theme, schedule
-
South-Carolina47 minutes agoWhere to watch Tennessee-South Carolina baseball: TV, channel, stream
-
South Dakota53 minutes agoSouth Dakota expands ICE partnership to boost deportations, save money
-
Tennessee59 minutes agoTick bites rising in 2026: Symptoms, diseases to watch in Tennessee
