弗尼尼就辛纳在加拿大退赛发表看法：“费德勒、纳达尔和德约科维奇从不错过任何一站大师赛1000”

Streaming ATP Washington 網球直播

🎾 Rafael Jodar vs Kei Nishikori

1. 在此註冊 Bet365
2. 首次存款至少 €5
3. 前往「直播」區域觀看每場比賽

在 Bet365 觀看比賽

 PUBLICIDAD

在 bet365 注册，在您的账户中存入 5 欧元或以上，您将获得 100% 等额的合格存款投注积分（最高 100 欧元）。仅适用于新客户。适用条款与细则。赢利不包含投注积分本金。适用最高奖金、游戏限制、时间限制及相关条款。需要注册。

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 play practically all the major tournaments.

The absence of Jannik Sinner raises a recurring discussion. Every time a star voluntarily renounces a Masters 1000, voices emerge that consider that current players compete too little and nostalgically recall the era of the Big 3. The comparison holds important nuances: neither Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic always played everything, nor are the physical demands and calendar exactly the same as today. Fognini, who lived with them for practically his entire career, brings a particularly interesting perspective.

Fognini understands Sinner's decision

Sinner could have gone to Canada chasing another big success after a spectacular first half of the season, but he chose 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 exertion accumulated over the past few months.

Fognini finds nothing unusual in that determination. "I am not surprised by Jannik's withdrawal from Montreal. It's right to save himself for the US Open," he explained on Sky Sports Italy. It's a reflection that arises 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 condition 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, renouncing Canada can be understood as a strategic decision rather than just a desire to rest.

Fabio Fognini highlights a clear difference with the Big 3

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

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

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

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

This is where one of the major nuances of the debate arises. There is a 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 stages of their careers, endured numerous injuries, and renounced significant tournaments when their bodies demanded it. Nadal is probably the most evident example. For many years, he pushed his body during the clay court season and arrived at the latter part of the season heavily burdened, to the extent that his results and participation in the final months of the season were recurrently affected.

Federer also profoundly altered his planning as his career progressed, being much more selective in his tournament appearances to extend his longevity. Djokovic has followed a similar path in his later years. Therefore, the management of efforts is not an invention of the new generation.

Another different issue is that during certain peak periods, the three were able to sustain an extraordinarily consistent presence at major events. There is indeed 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 demands increasing physical explosiveness

It is also dangerous to interpret current withdrawals as a generational matter and simply conclude that the younger players are "softer." Professional tennis has undergone an enormous physical evolution in recent years.

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

All of this has consequences. The body must absorb a tremendous number of impacts during matches that can last hours and be repeated almost every other day during major events. Furthermore, the expansion of numerous Masters 1000 has led to the major tours occupying an increasing number of weeks on the calendar.

Thus, direct comparisons between different eras prove challenging. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic endured extreme demands and showed extraordinary physical capacity, but it doesn't mean that any decision by Sinner, Alcaraz, or any current player to protect their body should be seen as a lack of commitment.

Sinner gives up Canada, thinking of a much greater goal

In Sinner's specific case, it's also challenging to question his competitive ambition. The Italian has been achieving significant results and knows that many of his season's goals will be decided in the coming weeks. Renouncing Canada means sacrificing the opportunity to continue an outstanding streak in Masters 1000 events but allows for more time to prepare for the hardcourt 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 strain of playing all the clay court Masters 1000 events, could have been a turning point in his career and calendar management. Fognini completely agrees with this. His criticism is not so much directed at Sinner as it is at a general evolution of the circuit where Masters 1000 events may end up with weakened fields when several stars decide to conserve efforts simultaneously.

And that is indeed a significant debate for tennis. The circuit needs to uphold the prestige of its major tournaments but also needs to 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 cautions against overly simplistic comparisons. The Big 3 were not immune to wear and tear either, and some of their members paid for the excesses committed at certain points in the season for years. Sinner seems determined to learn that lesson: he may give up a big tournament now if he believes it enhances his chances of arriving in full form at the most important stage, the US Open.

本新闻为自动翻译。您可以阅读原始新闻：Fognini opina sobre la baja de Sinner en Canadá: "Federer, Nadal y Djokovic no se saltaban ningún Masters 1000"