Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner made sure they put on a show for the tennis world in their final at the French Open. A “come from behind” win for the Spaniard meant that Sinner, after being in touching distance and having three match points, still could not get hold of the prestigious silverware. The two young guns battled it out for 5 hours and 29 minutes. Their tenacity and skill on the court, however, spurred an argument of whether the two players could have beaten the “King of Clay”: Rafael Nadal in his prime?<\/p>\n
Tennis legend and commentator John McEnroe weighed in on the topic. He strongly presented his views in his own style. The American legend said<\/a>, “You would make a serious argument with both guys that they would be favorite to beat Nadal, at his best.” He strongly believes that both Sinner and Alcaraz could defeat the undisputed King of Clay with the kind of level they showed on the court in the final. McEnroe, however, clarified that he doesn’t feel either of them would go on to win 20 Grand Slams like the famous Big 3. He mentioned that he felt the “plateau was too high and almost impossible” to reach. He stuck to his point of believing that the two young guns could enter the court as favorites on a given day against Nadal.<\/p>\n