John McEnroe has made a bold and rather serious accusation about the Australian Open after watching Jannik Sinner struggle his way through the third round.
Tasked with toppling the unseeded American Eliot Spizzirri, many expected a routine win for the two-time defending champion.
However, it was anything but, as the scorching Melbourne heat rendered Jannik Sinner immobile.
He could barely hobble over to his coaching box, let alone play gruelling points, and found himself a break down in the third set, having shared the opening two sets.
It was what happened next that left John McEnroe somewhat frustrated, making a really serious accusation about the Australian Open and their treatment of the Italian.
John McEnroe thinks the Australian Open favoured Jannik Sinner
Whilst McEnroe was sympathetic to Sinner’s cause, he also suggested that, had Spizzirri been in a similar position, the same measures would not have been taken.
His argument was that, being the two-time defending champion and former world number one, he was afforded special measures, despite there being a heat rule in place that enforced the break that saved Sinner.
Rate Carlos Alcaraz’s chances of winning the Australian Open out of 10
McEnroe, speaking live on ESPN’s broadcast of the match, stated: “I don’t think anyone wants to see this in our sport. It seems that there is favouritism. I would like to think that if it had happened to Spizzirri, they would also have stopped the game. I don’t know if they would have done it.”
Carlos Alcaraz has also reacted to Sinner’s struggles in the heat as well, offering far more sympathy than McEnroe.
Jannik Sinner was bailed out by an enforced rule
Whilst Sinner admitted himself that he got ‘lucky’ in his match against Spizzirri, this enforced break was not done following his request.
There is a heat rule specifically in place for such extreme measures, built around four factors: radiant heat, air temperature in the shade, relative humidity and wind speed.
Who do you think will retire with more Grand Slam titles?
All it needed was for this heat stress scale to hit five to force huge changes, and that’s exactly what happened.
McEnroe’s suggestion that the same benefit might not have been afforded to Spizzirri seems unlikely, given the fact that it was not a subjective rule. It was a scientific, measured process, and therefore incapable of favouritism.
Spizzirri spoke about the decision to close the roof afterwards, and seemingly held no ill feelings towards Sinner or those in charge of such a process.
