Fognini commenta sulla mancanza di Sinner in Canada: "Federer, Nadal e Djokovic non saltavano mai nessun Masters 1000"

Streaming ATP Washington tennis in diretta

🎾 Alex Michelsen vs Adrian Mannarino

1. Registrati su Bet365 qui
2. Effettua il tuo primo deposito di almeno 5 €
3. Vai alla sezione “Live” e guarda ogni partita

Guarda la partita su Bet365

 PUBLICIDAD

Registrati su bet365, versa 5€ o più sul tuo conto e riceverai il 100% del tuo deposito valido in Crediti Scommessa (fino a 100€). Solo per i nuovi clienti. Si applicano termini e condizioni. Le vincite non includono l’importo dei Crediti Scommessa. Si applicano vincite massime, restrizioni di gioco, limiti di tempo e condizioni. Registrazione obbligatoria.

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, though he reflects on how the circuit has changed. The Italian recalls that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic used to compete in practically all the major tournaments.

Jannik Sinner's absence once again raises a recurrent discussion. Whenever a star voluntarily withdraws from a Masters 1000, voices emerge that believe 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 the calendar exactly the same as today. Fognini, who shared most of his career with them, provides a particularly interesting perspective.

Fognini understands Sinner's decision

Sinner could have gone to Canada pursuing 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 huge strain accumulated over the past months.

Fognini sees nothing strange in that determination. "I'm not surprised by Jannik's withdrawal from Montreal. He's right to save himself for the US Open," he explained on Sky Sports Italy. It's a reflection based on 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 the tournaments that can truly define a season.

In Sinner's case, any physical issue acquired now could jeopardize Cincinnati and, especially, New York. From that perspective, giving up on Canada can be seen as a strategic decision rather than just a desire to rest.

Fabio Fognini highlights a clear difference with the Big 3

However, Fognini immediately introduces a counterpoint. The Italian regrets that the major Masters 1000 tournaments can lose so many stars and remembers what it was like to compete during the period when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic virtually monopolized all the major titles. "Today, anyone can win a Masters 1000. In my time, Roger, Rafa, and Nole didn't miss a single one, it was impossible," he affirmed.

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

Fognini knows well what it meant. He reached world number 9 and won the 2019 Monte Carlo Masters 1000, developing most of his career during a time when Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic made the major tournaments extremely difficult to conquer for others.

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

This is a key aspect of the debate. There is a tendency to idealize the past and recall the Big 3 competing week in, week out without rest, when the reality was much more complex.

The three managed their schedules at different stages of their careers, suffered numerous injuries, and skipped important tournaments when their bodies demanded it. Nadal is probably the most obvious example. For many years, he pushed his body during the clay-court season and ended the year very worn out, affecting his results and participation in the latter months of the season recurrently.

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

Another issue is that during certain periods of peak performance, the three were able to sustain an extraordinarily constant presence at major events. There is some truth in Fognini's reflection, and it is understandable that someone who competed against them perceives a difference compared to the current scenario.

Today's tennis requires increasing physical explosiveness

Interpreting current withdrawals as a generational issue and simply concluding that the young players are "softer" is also risky. Professional tennis has undergone a huge 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 rally into an extraordinary effort. The top players not only hit harder but also cover vast amounts of court, brake violently, change direction, and constantly accelerate.

All of this has consequences. The body must absorb a huge number of impacts during matches that can last several hours and repeat almost every two days during major events. Moreover, the expansion of numerous Masters 1000 has caused the major tours to occupy increasingly more weeks in the calendar.

Therefore, direct comparisons between different eras are 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 bodies can be interpreted as a lack of commitment.

Sinner gives up Canada in pursuit of a much greater goal

In Sinner's particular case, it's hard to question his competitive ambition. The Italian has been achieving great results and knows that many of his season goals will be decided in the coming weeks. Skipping Canada means sacrificing the chance to continue an outstanding run in Masters 1000 events, but it allows him to have more time to prepare for the hard court season and approach 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 on the clay-court swing, may have been a turning point in his career and his calendar management. Fognini fully agrees. His criticism is not so much aimed at Sinner as at a general evolution of the circuit where the Masters 1000 events can face weakened fields when several stars simultaneously decide to conserve efforts.

And that is indeed a significant debate for tennis. The circuit needs to uphold the prestige of its major tournaments, but it also must question to what extent it can demand a constant 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 a caution against oversimplifying comparisons. The Big 3 were not immune to fatigue either, and some of their members paid for the excesses committed in certain moments of the season for years. Sinner seems determined to learn that lesson: he may give up a major tournament now if he believes it enhances his chances of arriving in full form at the most important stage for him, the US Open.

Questa notizia è una traduzione automatica. Puoi leggere la notizia originale Fognini opina sobre la baja de Sinner en Canadá: "Federer, Nadal y Djokovic no se saltaban ningún Masters 1000"