Connect with us

Culture

Carlos Alcaraz hasn't won a title since Wimbledon. So what's going wrong?

Published

on

Carlos Alcaraz hasn't won a title since Wimbledon. So what's going wrong?

Let’s start with a big qualifier: Carlos Alcaraz is probably going to be just fine.

He’s 20 years old. He’s already won two Grand Slam titles, with neither of them coming on clay, which may be his best surface and is certainly the one he is most familiar with. At 19, he became the youngest man to achieve the No 1 ranking.

Even his top rivals, including contemporaries such as Jannik Sinner, expect Alcaraz to be the greatest player of his era. He is going to win a lot of tournaments, many of them Grand Slams. It’s just that he hasn’t won a tournament since he beat Novak Djokovic in five sets in the Wimbledon final eight months ago. 

That is his longest stretch without an ATP Tour-level title since he started winning them in 2021.

And that is, well, a bit weird.  

Advertisement

Remember those heady days after Wimbledon? 

After he came back to beat Djokovic, the best grass court player in the world, on Centre Court, there was a sense that he had wrestled the torch out of the hands of the Serbian champion, a player who had won more Grand Slam titles and just about everything else than just about everyone. This was supposed to be the start of Alcaraz winning just about everything for a very long time. 


Alcaraz celebrates with the Wimbledon trophy last year (Julian Finney/Getty Images)

That might still happen. It just hasn’t happened yet. 

He’s a respectable 24-11 since winning Wimbledon. Then again, Sinner won his first title at the Australian Open in January, took two weeks off, then went to Rotterdam and won another title. He’s undefeated this year and hasn’t lost a match since mid-November. Both begin play at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California, the so-called “fifth major”, later this week.  

“I have to improve a lot of things on the court and off the court, as well,” Alcaraz said earlier in the year. 

Advertisement

He has lamented his dips in focus in the middle of matches. He has been at a loss to explain nights when he struggles to find the court with his usually lethal groundstrokes. He said when he practices occasionally with Djokovic, he studies how he concentrates, aspiring to one day be able to approach every match and every practice session with the intensity of the man who has set the standard for the sport the past decade and bested the two players, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, once considered untouchable. 

go-deeper

Like every player, Alcaraz knows his weaknesses, such as they are, are some mystical combination of the physical, technical and mental.    

Alcaraz has resisted getting too specific about just what he needs to do to improve, leaving everyone else to figure out the answer to a question that feels a little silly given he has already won $27.5million in prize money and tens of millions more in sponsorships. He is 71-15 since the start of 2023. 

But here it goes anyway: what’s wrong with King Carlos?


The short answer is, not too much, except when it’s a lot.

Djokovic, Sinner, Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev, four of the best players alive, are responsible for six of Alcaraz’s 11 losses since July, which includes his retirement with an ankle injury in Rio in February. There’s not a terrible amount of shame in that, except that he had been beating everyone on that list except Djokovic fairly comfortably the past year. 

Advertisement

Alcaraz retired with an injury in Rio (Buda Mendes/Getty Images,)

To figure out what, if anything, has changed from the version of Alcaraz that won 11 tournaments in 17 months during 2022 and 2023, we enlisted the help of the wizards at TennisViz and Tennis Data Innovations, who collect ball and player tracking data with high-speed cameras and analyze them in real-time to understand the effectiveness of every shot.

The numbers show that Alcaraz has hardly become a shadow of his former self since Wimbledon, compared with an aggregate measurement of his play over the past year, but he has fallen off just enough to make himself more regularly vulnerable. That is especially true against the best of the best, when the slightest drop can result in a loss. 

Yet, his drop-offs have been dramatic in four surprising losses since last summer, to Nicolas Jarry and Roman Safiullin, and less surprising ones to Grigor Dimitrov and Tommy Paul (who has been a sneakily hard match-up for Alcaraz).

Tom Corrie, a former coach who is the head of performance for Tennis Viz and has spent more time than most studying Alcaraz, has a theory about this, which involves the Spaniard being almost too talented for his own good.

“The guy has endless tactical options,” Corrie said. “He’s unbelievably skilful, he hits with so much power, but sometimes he doesn’t play with a tactical framework that is as defined as some of the other players. Therefore, he goes missing in matches and plays at a bad level. When he drops off, he drops off quite big.” 

Advertisement

Also worth noting – men’s tennis is crazy deep at the moment. Even the second half of the top 100 has some serious quality. Have fun with an early-round match-up against Tomas Machac (No 63) of the Czech Republic. Freebies can be few and far between. Alcaraz’s opponents, who are almost always extra motivated, have to get some credit for making him play poorly.   

go-deeper

Still, some top-line numbers for Alcaraz stand out.

One measure is how often Alcaraz is ‘on the attack’ — defined by Tennis Viz as when a player has received a low-quality incoming shot, has a positive court positioning (up the court), or has a comfortable contact point with the ball (not on the stretch). A player will be ‘in defense’ if they have received a high-quality shot, have bad court positioning (particularly deep or wide in the court), or are playing the ball on the stretch.

The tour average for shots played in attack is 25 per cent. On average, Alcaraz is on the attack 24 per cent of the time, but since Wimbledon, that figure has dropped to 22 per cent. That might not sound like a lot, but tennis is a game of small margins. A few points can make a big difference and it’s harder to win them while defending.


(Marcelo Endelli/Getty Images)

The other numbers that show relatively dramatic changes are the effectiveness of his service return, his forehand and his backhand. The high-speed cameras and computers generate a score for each of those shots based on their speed and placement — extra credit for painting the lines or getting very close very often. 

On average over the past year, Alcaraz was near the top of the game in each of those categories. 

Advertisement

On a scale of one to 10, Alcaraz’s service return averaged a 7.6, a full point better than the tour average and fifth overall. Since Wimbledon, his return rating has dropped to 7.0, still better than most but just 13th overall.

His backhand, an 8.0 on average over the past year, good for sixth overall, has fallen to 7.6 since Wimbledon— 15th place. And his deadly forehand, the shot that makes players shudder, has had one of the most dramatic drop-offs, from 8.8 to 8.1, tumbling from second best to 15th.

Alcaraz essentially magnified these trends during the surprising losses to Paul, Dimitrov, Safiullin and Jarry. 

Against Paul at the National Bank Open in Canada in August, he was on the attack during just 19 per cent of the match. Against Dimitrov in Shanghai and Jarry in Buenos Aires, the attack rate was just 20 per cent.

Advertisement

That might not be such a problem if Alcaraz had continued to do the thing that has made him such a fan favorite — his ability to magically win a point from a defensive position when everything seems lost and he rockets a ridiculous forehand down the line on the run. That is known as his ‘steal score’. 

His steal score has averaged 37 per cent since the Wimbledon title — but in those four surprising losses, it was 30 per cent. Playing more defensively and less miraculously pretty much guarantees a loss. Add in sub-par execution on the most basic shots and there was no way Alcaraz was going to win those matches. 

His forehand quality was 7.3 against Paul and 6.8 against Jarry, both well below the tour average. Same for his backhand against Jarry and Safiullin. 

His performance against Jarry wasn’t just below his standards but way below pro tennis standards. As can be seen from the next two charts, his numbers were below the tour averages in 10 statistical categories, everything from the speed of his forehand to the percentage of points won when the rally lasted more than eight shots.

Advertisement

Against Safiullin, he converted just 50 per cent of the points when he had established control and been on the attack. The tour average is 66 per cent. 

The effect of all this can be stunning to the eye. Since Alcaraz has established a reputation for the spectacular, it makes the bad performances look terrible. 

“When it goes wrong, it goes really wrong,” Corrie said. “If you beat Medvedev, he’s still putting thousands of balls in the court. He’s not disappearing so aggressively like Carlos is.”

(Top photo: Marcelo Endelli/Getty Images)

Advertisement

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