In the 2025 US Open men's singles final, Sinner was defeated by Alcaraz 2-6, 6-3, 1-6, 4-6, a match outcome that attracted much focus. As the prominent "twin stars" in men's tennis today, their matches are closely watched. The factors behind Sinner's loss merit detailed examination.

From the data, it is clear that Sinner's poor performance in multiple key aspects was the primary reason for his defeat.

Serving performance—a critical factor in gaining control in tennis matches. However, in the final, his serving form deteriorated sharply, with a first-serve success rate dropping to 48% and a second-serve scoring rate also falling to 48%. This increased pressure on his service games, making it difficult to hold serve comfortably. In contrast, Alcaraz's serving in the final was consistent with his previous six matches, recording 10 aces compared to Sinner's mere 2, showing a significant gap. Alcaraz leveraged his steady and powerful serve to score directly multiple times, establishing an advantage, while Sinner's weak serving was a key factor in his loss.

Interpretation: Sinner’s serving completely collapsed; the low first-serve percentage disrupted his service rhythm, combined with many double faults and a scarcity of aces, causing him to lose control of the match through his serve. Conversely, Alcaraz’s “efficient and aggressive” serving combination allowed him to score directly multiple times and create opportunities for follow-up attacks, becoming the driving force behind his victory.

Offensive efficiencysaw a sharp decline within the first four shots. Unlike the evenly matched encounters at Wimbledon and the French Open, Sinner was suppressed by Alcaraz’s varied tactics. Only near the end of the second set did Sinner’s scoring rate within four shots improve. Alcaraz was well-prepared for Sinner’s attacking strategies, using precise anticipation and quick reactions to disrupt Sinner’s early-shot offense and break his rhythm.

At the net and mid-courtattacks, Sinner had disrupted Alcaraz’s rhythm to win at Wimbledon. At the US Open final, he attempted the same tactic but was effectively countered by Alcaraz, whose defensive positioning limited Sinner’s ability to approach the net, forcing him to struggle from the baseline. Additionally, Sinner’s return points won in the final were only 17%, significantly lower than Alcaraz’s 31% (compared to 25% each at Wimbledon). This poor return performance prevented him from gaining opportunities to approach the net. Notably, Sinner usually ranks among the top in ATP return statistics but failed to capitalize on this advantage in the match. The obstruction of net and mid-court attacks had a major impact on the outcome, further highlighting Alcaraz’s improved serving during this match.

Interpretation: Sinner was completely dominated in the return game by Alcaraz, especially with a first-serve return point win rate below 20%, leaving him at a disadvantage during service-return exchanges. Although Alcaraz’s break-point conversion was not perfect, his pressure on returns created far more break opportunities than Sinner, ultimately securing victory through a decisive number of breaks.

Regarding baseline tactics, Sinner’s fast-pacedbaseline offense and defensefaced challenges in the final. Alcaraz had a thorough understanding of Sinner’s baseline attacking patterns and anticipated shot placement in advance, causing Sinner’s baseline attacks to frequently fail. Sinner acknowledged post-match that his style was easy to predict. When facing Alcaraz’s backhand slices, Sinner was caught in a dilemma—defending with his backhand risked errors, while stepping around for forehand attacks led to too many mistakes, creating a fatal weakness in his baseline game. Alcaraz also covered more ground overall, transitioning smoothly between defense and offense, maintaining control of the match’s momentum.

In terms of tactical variation,Sinner’s game plan was monotonous, relying mainly on familiar attacking patterns and shot selections, offering no surprises or challenges to Alcaraz. Alcaraz, however, continually experimented with new tactics, such as sudden drop shots to disrupt Sinner’s rhythm. According to Tennis Abstract data, Sinner had played fewer than 1% drop shots on hard courts in the past three months, whereas Alcaraz unexpectedly used six drop shots in this match, three of which successfully unsettled Sinner’s defense. Sinner’s inability to adapt quickly to Alcaraz’s tactical changes led to increasing passivity as the match progressed.

Throughout the match, Sinner’s share of points won was 45% compared to Alcaraz’s 55%. For reference, at Wimbledon and the French Open, these figures were 52%:48% and 50%:50%, respectively. This shows Sinner’s performance in this metric was noticeably below the usual level in their encounters.

In terms of handling crucial points, Sinner’s performance was unsatisfactory. For example, in a key game of the fourth set, he committed a double fault that handed Alcaraz a break point, which was then converted. At critical moments, Sinner lacked sufficient composure and decisiveness, missing many chances to turn the match around. Meanwhile, Alcaraz remained calm under pressure, seizing opportunities to extend or maintain his lead, which was a significant factor in his ultimate victory.

Comprehensive data analysis of Sinner vs. Alcaraz in the US Open final

Based on technical statistics from the US Open final (blue represents Sinner, black represents Alcaraz), a deep analysis is conducted across three core dimensions: serving, returning, and scoring.

1. Serving: Alcaraz establishes a “dominant” advantage

Serving metrics | Sinner | Alcaraz | Key conclusions

First serve in % | 48% (54/112) | 61% (54/89) | Alcaraz’s first serve consistency far exceeds Sinner’s, despite serving fewer times, achieving the same number of successful first serves

First serve points won | 69% (37/54) | 83% (45/54) | Alcaraz leads with a 14% higher chance of winning points on the first serve

Second serve points won | 48% (28/58) | 54% (19/35) | Alcaraz maintains an advantage on second serve points with only 60% of Sinner’s second serve attempts

Aces / Double faults | 2 / 4 | 10 / 0 | Alcaraz combines aggressive and reliable serving, while Sinner struggles with frequent errors and lacks direct point-scoring serves

Interpretation: Sinner’s serving collapsed completely; low first-serve percentage disrupted his service rhythm, many double faults, and few aces caused him to lose control of the match through his serve. Alcaraz’s “efficient and powerful” serving allowed multiple direct points and created advantages for subsequent attacks, serving as the key engine for victory.

2. Returning: Sinner trapped in a “passive defense” dilemma

Returning metrics | Sinner | Alcaraz | Key conclusions

Return points won on first serve | 17% (9/54) | 31% (17/54) | Alcaraz’s efficiency in attacking Sinner’s first serve is significantly higher, applying strong pressure

Return points won on second serve | 46% (16/35) | 52% (30/58) | Alcaraz also holds an advantage on second serve returns, maintaining pressure on Sinner’s second serve

Break point conversion | 100% (1/1) | 45% (5/11) | Sinner had only one break chance which he converted, but Alcaraz converted five out of eleven break points, dominating in quantity

Interpretation: Sinner was completely suppressed in returns by Alcaraz, especially with a first-serve return point win rate under 20%, leaving him at a disadvantage during service-return exchanges. Though Alcaraz’s break conversion was not perfect, his pressure created far more break opportunities, ultimately securing victory through quantity turning into quality.

3. Scoring: Alcaraz’s overall control stands out

Scoring metrics | Sinner | Alcaraz | Key conclusions

Serving points won | 58% (65/112) | 72% (64/89) | Alcaraz’s dominance in service games is stronger, achieving nearly equal points with fewer serves

Return points won | 28% (25/89) | 42% (47/112) | Alcaraz shows clear superiority in return points, scoring significantly more in opponent’s service games

Total points won | 45% (90/201) | 55% (111/201) | Alcaraz’s overall scoring advantage is significant, winning one more point per every ten points, which accumulated into the set score difference

Summary:Sinner’s loss at the US Open final was due to comprehensive failures in serving, returning, and scoring. Instability on serve cost him control, weakness in returns hindered counterattack opportunities, and he was ultimately outscored. In contrast, Alcaraz’s absolute serving advantage and effective pressure on returns allowed him to dominate the match tempo, which is the core reason for his hard-court Grand Slam victory.

Below are the final match statistics from this year’s Wimbledon and French Open for Sinner and Alcaraz. These clearly show how Sinner’s performance at the US Open final differed greatly from those two matches.

Wimbledon:

This is a technical statistics chart from Wimbledon, comparing Sinner (blue) and Alcaraz (black) across serving, returning, and scoring metrics, with the following interpretations:

1. Serving: Sinner shows better consistency, Alcaraz stronger aggression

Serving efficiency:Sinner’s first serve in rate was 62%, first serve points won 75%; Alcaraz’s first serve in rate was 53%, first serve points won 75%. Both had equal first serve point percentages, but Sinner had better first serve consistency. On second serve points, Sinner led with 58% compared to Alcaraz’s 51%.

Serving threats and errors:Alcaraz had 15 aces, Sinner 8; Sinner committed 2 double faults, Alcaraz 7. Alcaraz was more aggressive on serve, Sinner more consistent.

2. Returning: Sinner slightly ahead

Both had 25% return points won on first serve; on second serve returns, Sinner led with 49% versus Alcaraz’s 42%. Break point conversion was 44% for Sinner and 33% for Alcaraz. Sinner showed better counterattack efficiency on returns.

3. Scoring: Sinner overall superior

Sinner’s serving points won were 68%, Alcaraz’s 64%; return points won were 36% for Sinner and

French Open:

This is a technical statistics chart from the French Open, comparing Sinner (blue) and Alcaraz (black) across serving, returning, and scoring metrics, with the following interpretations:

1. Serving: Sinner’s consistency stands out, Alcaraz’s aggression paired with errors

Serving efficiency: Sinner’s first serve in rate was 56%, first serve points won 70%; Alcaraz’s first serve in rate was 59%, first serve points won 63%. Sinner had better first serve point efficiency, while Alcaraz had slightly better first serve consistency. On second serve points, Alcaraz led with 57% versus Sinner’s 49%, showing stronger second serve threat.

Serving threats and errors: Sinner hit 8 aces with no double faults; Alcaraz had 7 aces but 6 double faults. Sinner’s serving was extremely steady, while Alcaraz’s aggressive serve came with higher error risk.

2. Returning: Each had strengths, overall evenly matched

Sinner’s return points won on first serve were 37%, Alcaraz’s 30%, showing Sinner’s clear advantage; on second serve returns, Alcaraz led with 51% versus Sinner’s 43%, showing stronger counterattack. Break point conversion was 50% for Alcaraz and 47% for Sinner, a narrow difference.

3. Scoring: Both completely even

Sinner’s serving points won were 61%, Alcaraz’s 60%; return points won were 40% for Sinner and 39% for Alcaraz; total points won were both 50%, indicating an extremely tight and balanced competition at the French Open final.

Questions and speculations

By comparing the US Open final data with Wimbledon and French Open finals, it is evident that Sinner did not perform at his normal level during the US Open match.

Firstly, there is no court surface effect. It is generally believed that Sinner is stronger on hard courts and Alcaraz on clay. However, both are all-court players. Therefore, Sinner’s noticeable drop in form may be due to injury? His poor serving might suggest an abdominal muscle issue?

Secondly, both during and after the match, Sinner’s emotions were very calm, almost as if he accepted the loss as inevitable. He showed no regret or frustration. Did he perhaps anticipate the result before the match? This demeanor contrasts sharply with his reaction after narrowly losing at the French Open.

Moreover, in the post-match press conference, Sinner mentioned that his playing style is easy to predict and needs to be changed, even if that means losing some matches. Could this be a form of “preemptive acceptance” of failure?

We will have to wait for time to reveal the answers.

[Look at me][Look at me][Look at me][Give myself a flower][Give myself a flower][Give myself a flower]

#SinnerEra##TennisNews##SinnerUSOpen#​#TennisMatchAnalysis#​​