Great analysis Austen, you really nailed every main area that constituted Sinner’s margin in that final.
As an avid reader of Hugh Clarke’s work, I think the passivity is and always has been a consequence / byproduct of his forehand’s fragility.
That 2-2 40-40 point in the first set that you used as an example. I firmly believe that if you give Zverev the symmetrical situation, so him being pushed wide on his BH from a short angle, with Sinner still camping near the AD-side, he does not hesitate going down the line, and probably doesn’t miss it.
Thanks @Frauderer! Good point for sure - Zverev definitely has more confidence in his backhand side, and he's willing to take a bit more on from that wing. His backhand is more compact too, there's just a few too many moving parts with his forehand.
Great analysis Austen, you really nailed every main area that constituted Sinner’s margin in that final.
As an avid reader of Hugh Clarke’s work, I think the passivity is and always has been a consequence / byproduct of his forehand’s fragility.
That 2-2 40-40 point in the first set that you used as an example. I firmly believe that if you give Zverev the symmetrical situation, so him being pushed wide on his BH from a short angle, with Sinner still camping near the AD-side, he does not hesitate going down the line, and probably doesn’t miss it.
Thanks @Frauderer! Good point for sure - Zverev definitely has more confidence in his backhand side, and he's willing to take a bit more on from that wing. His backhand is more compact too, there's just a few too many moving parts with his forehand.