Fognini donne son avis sur le retrait de Sinner au Canada : "Federer, Nadal et Djokovic ne manquaient aucun Masters 1000"

Jannik Sinner has decided not to compete in the 2026 Canadian Masters 1000 in order to manage efforts before the US Open, a decision that Fabio Fognini understands, although he uses it to reflect on how the circuit has changed. The Italian recalls that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic used to compete in practically all the major tournaments.

The absence of Jannik Sinner once again brings up a recurring discussion. Every time a star voluntarily withdraws from a Masters 1000, voices arise suggesting that current players compete too little and nostalgically remember the era of the Big 3. The comparison has important nuances: neither Federer, Nadal, nor Djokovic always played everything, nor are the physical demands and calendar exactly the same as today. Fognini, who lived alongside them for practically his entire career, offers a particularly interesting perspective.

Fognini understands Sinner's decision

Sinner could have gone to Canada chasing another great success after a spectacular first half of the season, but he has chosen to prioritize his physical condition. The US Open is already on the horizon, and the Italian wants to carefully manage the workload after the enormous strain accumulated over the last few months.

Fognini doesn't find anything strange in that determination. "I'm not surprised by Jannik's withdrawal from Montreal. He's right to reserve himself for the US Open," he explained on Sky Sports Italia. It's a reflection stemming from a reality increasingly internalized among the top players. The goal is no longer necessarily to compete every possible week but to arrive in optimal conditions at tournaments that can truly define a season.

In Sinner's case, moreover, any physical problem acquired now could jeopardize Cincinnati and, especially, New York. From that perspective, foregoing Canada can be seen as a strategic decision rather than a mere desire to rest.

Fabio Fognini highlights a clear difference with the Big 3

However, Fognini immediately introduces the counterpoint. The Italian laments that the major Masters 1000 events may lose so many stars and recalls what it was like to compete during the period when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic monopolized practically all the major titles. "Today, anyone can win a Masters 1000. In my time, Roger, Rafa, and Nole didn't skip any, it was impossible," he stated.

The statement contains some exaggeration if taken literally but perfectly reflects a feeling shared by many fans. During the prime years of the Big 3, attending a Masters 1000 typically meant having to overcome several of the best players in history to lift the trophy.

Image

Fognini knows well what it entailed. He rose to world number 9 and conquered the Monte Carlo 2019 Masters 1000, developing practically his entire career in an era where Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic made the major tournaments tremendously difficult to conquer for others.

Did Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic really play all the major tournaments?

Here lies one of the main nuances of the debate. There is a certain tendency to idealize the past and remember the Big 3 competing every week without rest when the reality was much more complex.

The three managed their schedules at different points in their careers, suffered numerous injuries, and gave up important tournaments when their bodies demanded it. Nadal is probably the clearest example. For many years, he pushed his body to the limit during the clay-court season and reached the end of the season highly worn out, resulting in his performance and participation in the final months of the season being recurrently affected.

Federer also profoundly altered his planning as his career progressed, being much more selective about where to compete to prolong his longevity. Djokovic has done something similar in recent years. Therefore, efforts management is not a novelty of the new generation.

A different matter is that during certain peaks of dominance, the three were able to maintain an extraordinarily constant presence in major events. There lies some truth in Fognini's reflection, and it is understandable that someone who competed against them perceives a difference compared to the current scenario.

Current tennis demands increasing physical explosiveness

It is also dangerous to interpret current withdrawals as a generational issue and simply conclude that young players are "softer." Professional tennis has undergone a significant physical evolution in recent years.

The average ball speed, the ability to hit powerfully from defensive positions, and especially the explosiveness required in movements turn each exchange into an extraordinary effort. The top players not only hit harder but cover huge amounts of court, brake abruptly, change direction, and constantly accelerate.

All of this has consequences. The body must absorb a huge number of impacts during matches that can last for several hours and be repeated practically every other day during major tournaments. Furthermore, the expansion of numerous Masters 1000 events has caused the major tours to occupy more weeks of the calendar.

Therefore, directly comparing different eras is challenging. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic endured intense demands and demonstrated extraordinary physical capacity, but that doesn't mean that any decision by Sinner, Alcaraz, or any current player to protect their body can be interpreted as a lack of commitment.

Sinner forgoes Canada with a much larger goal in mind

In Sinner's specific case, it is also challenging to question his competitive ambition. The Italian has been achieving great results and knows that many of his season objectives will be decided in the upcoming weeks. Giving up Canada means sacrificing the opportunity to continue an extraordinary streak in Masters 1000 events but allows him to have more time to prepare for the hard court season and face Cincinnati and the US Open in better conditions.

What happened at Roland Garros, which Jannik himself attributed to the extreme physical and mental effort of playing all the Masters 1000 events on clay, could have been a turning point in his career and his approach to scheduling. Fognini entirely agrees with that. His criticism is not so much directed at Sinner but at a general evolution of the circuit where the Masters 1000 events may face weakened fields when several stars decide to moderate their efforts simultaneously.

And that is indeed a relevant debate for tennis. The circuit needs to uphold the prestige of its major tournaments but also question to what extent it can demand a permanent presence from players subjected to an extraordinary calendar and level of physical intensity.

Fognini's statement about Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic inevitably prompts a look back but also cautions against overly simplistic comparisons. The Big 3 were not immune to fatigue, and some of its members paid for the excesses committed at certain points of the season for years. Sinner seems determined to learn that lesson: he may forgo a major tournament now if he believes it enhances his chances of arriving in top form at the event that matters most to him, the US Open.

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, Fognini opina sobre la baja de Sinner en Canadá: "Federer, Nadal y Djokovic no se saltaban ningún Masters 1000"