Accusations against Jannik Sinner: “Like Ned Flanders, he doesn’t have that fire inside him.” Fans are furious
The barrage of accusations and criticism against Jannik Sinner continues, as he has come under fire from several industry insiders for deciding to skip the Montreal Masters 1000 and thus forpassing up the chance to win all 1000 tournaments in a calendar year. Joining the critics of the world No. 1 is Eurosport journalist Simone Eterno, who didn’t mince words. “For an athlete to become a legend, he also needs to be a character. If I were in Sinner’s shoes, given how the season had unfolded, I would have gone to Montreal to try to make history by winning all the Masters 1000 tournaments. Instead, we have to acknowledge that Sinner is an anti-hero; we need to realize that’s just who Sinner is,” he said on the “Schiaffo al volo” podcast.
“The analysis of Sinner ends with the handshake with his opponent. But off the court, what do we have? The chance at a 9-for-9 record could have made him a legend. Sinner himself has no intention of saying or doing anything. If you don’t try, you don’t inspire. It’s a shame because not even attempting something no one has ever done before is disappointing. We’ll always analyze Sinner on the court, because off the court there’s very little to say.”
Eterno explained his reasoning this way: “I thought he had the fire inside him to try to make history by winning all the Masters in 2026, but evidently Sinner isn’t very interested in making history. For me, to become a legend like Ali, Jordan, Djokovic, or Maradona, you have to be a character—for better or for worse. For Sinner to break through and enter this category, he’d have to win 40 Grand Slams—and even that might not be enough. If we were to compare Sinner to a character from *The Simpsons*, he reminds me of Ned Flanders.”
Many fans on X defended Sinner: “The ‘Sinner sweep’ cost him a Roland Garros. And I’ll stop there,” “I reread it twice thinking it was a meme,” “These guys took offense at a joke Sinner made about press conferences—they’re as touchy as a minefield,” “In fact, it was really funny to sacrifice Roland Garros to go after all the Masters 1000s,” “By the end of his career, no one will care how many 1000s he won in a year”—there are thousands of comments.
Even New York Times journalist Ben Rothenberg, on his X profile, used very harsh language: “The fact that Jannik Sinner withdrew from Montreal to end his bid for a historic Masters 1000 double is a huge blow and should set off major alarm bells at the ATP.” Rothenberg then added: “Normally we wouldn’t make a big deal out of this, but Sinner has turned his back on history by saying goodbye to the chance to win nine Masters 1000 titles in a single year. The hardest part had already been done; he’s in excellent form, and yet he decided not to compete.”
Sinner’s decision, however, makes perfect sporting sense. To chase the record, the South Tyrolean would have had to play twelve matches in twenty days between Montreal and Cincinnati, with an immediate transition from one tournament to the next and very little time to recover ahead of the US Open. His team deemed this workload excessive, especially in light of what happened at Roland Garros, where the fatigue accumulated after five consecutive Masters 1000 tournaments had taken a toll on the world No. 1’s performance. The priority, as Sinner himself explained, is to be in top form for the US Open: “After carefully evaluating all the factors together with my team, we made the difficult decision to withdraw from Montreal. It’s never easy to skip such an important event, but we believe this is the right decision to prioritize my health. I’m sorry I won’t be able to be there, but I look forward to returning to Montreal in the future.”
