With momentum on his side, can Carlos Alcaraz defend his French Open crown — or will Jannik Sinner win the title as he returns from a doping ban? Could Novak Djokovic put together a miracle tournament to win a record-breaking 25th Grand Slam title?
Last year’s women’s champion, Iga Swiatek, has had a nightmare of a season. Will Aryna Sabalenka or Coco Gauff upset her in Paris to take their first Roland Garros title?
Our experts weigh in as the French Open begins Sunday.
How do you think Djokovic will fare here?
Bill Connelly: If you believe that rhythm matters at all, it’s hard to be optimistic. Since he got hurt at the Australian Open, he’s 7-5 overall, and five of those wins came in one tournament (Miami). He was 0-2 on clay, with zero sets won, before heading to Geneva this week, and the fact that he’s playing another tournament the week before a Slam at all tells you how desperate he was to find some rhythm and confidence.
That said, his draw is lovely, and, well, he did still make the Australian Open semifinals and win all 10 matches he was actually able to play at Roland Garros last year (minus his withdrawal against Casper Ruud in the French Open quarterfinals). If he’s able to improve his form in both Geneva and the early rounds at Roland Garros, then it’s not hard to see him at least reaching the quarterfinals. And if potential quarterfinal opponent Alexander Zverev‘s own form doesn’t improve, perhaps Djokovic could go even further than that, though a semifinal against Sinner very much feels like a bridge too far.
D’Arcy Maine: The $2.87 million question! It’s incredibly challenging — perhaps impossible — to know what to expect from Djokovic at this point. When at his best, he’s still a dominant force, but that level seems to be increasingly rare and the likelihood of him being able to consistently play at a high form for multiple matches in a row against top opponents is slim. He has struggled on clay this season and hadn’t won consecutive matches until 250-level Geneva this week. That’s not exactly the momentum one wants to arrive to Paris with.
However, as Bill mentioned, Djokovic’s draw, or at least the first several matches, are favorable. And if anyone can play themselves into contention and form at a Slam, it has to be Djokovic. While I certainly don’t count him among the top-tier favorites — that would be reserved exclusively for Alcaraz and Sinner at the moment — I can’t exactly count him out of contention either. At this point, I’m not sure any result — from an early exit to winning it all — would totally surprise me, but I think the quarterfinals feels like a safe answer.
Tom Hamilton: This is all about momentum, and the draw has opened things up wonderfully for him. He’s perhaps the best in the sport for clicking into his winning mindset and given his recent form — especially on clay — he’ll need to find that inner determination again which has led him to such incredible feats in the sport. If he plays his way in, then he’ll get more dangerous as the matches build. If the draw goes as expected, then he should beat Zverev in the quarterfinals and then it’s down to whether he can find the Djokovic of old for a potential semifinal against Sinner. I think he’ll get to the final four.
Simon Cambers: Based on his form this year, it is almost impossible to know. He was good in Australia before he got injured, and played well in Miami, but otherwise has struggled badly. It was fascinating talking to him in Monte Carlo — he made no secret that it’s becoming more and more difficult to get motivated. However, this is a Grand Slam, and that means he should have no motivational issues. He also has a superb early draw that should allow him to work his way into the tournament.
I don’t see him winning this — it has to be remembered that as great as he is, he is now 38 and it just doesn’t get any easier. There are too many other players who can trouble him, and he might just become too fatigued by the time he gets to the quarters. But if he does make it through Week 1 without too much effort, then he will be hugely dangerous, as he wants that 25th slam title.
With Swiatek’s recent struggles, what can she do to win a fourth straight title?
Connelly: She absolutely can. Even in such a frustrating year, she’s still 27-9 in 2025, and she’s 27-3 against players not named Gauff, Mirra Andreeva or, hilariously, Jelena Ostapenko. The fact that she was beaten so thoroughly in her past two clay-court tournaments — 6-1, 6-1 to Gauff in Madrid; 6-1, 7-5 to Danielle Collins in Rome — certainly doesn’t lend confidence, and her draw is absolutely brutal.
Swiatek might have to face Marta Kostyuk (6-2 on clay this year, with both losses to Sabalenka) in the third round and potentially either Elena Rybakina (against whom she’s 4-4 all time, 0-2 on clay) or her forever-foil, Ostapenko (against whom she’s 0-6) in the fourth. If she gets past that, she should face last year’s runner-up, Jasmine Paolini, in the quarterfinals just to reach No. 1 seed Sabalenka in the semis. And if she gets past that, either Andreeva or Gauff could await in the finals. If she wins her fifth French Open (and keeps pace with Rafael Nadal in that regard), she’ll most certainly have earned it.
Maine: Swiatek certainly can win again, but she has shown just how vulnerable and beatable she is during the lead-in events. Obviously her skills and clay acumen haven’t disappeared, but she is going to need to rediscover her confidence — and fast — and not let the pressure of her previous triumphs at the tournament overwhelm her.
Her draw is incredibly challenging, but her opening two rounds (against Rebecca Sramkova and then potentially Emma Raducanu, whom she routed 6-1, 6-0 in their last meeting at the Australian Open) could help with her self-belief and bolster her against some likely very tough opponents. It’s hard to see Swiatek finally getting her first-ever defeat over Ostapenko in the fourth round at this point if they were to meet, but if she were to do that, and prove to herself she can do it and remind herself of what she’s capable, that could turn everything around.
Hamilton: It’s a tricky draw for Swiatek and her form doesn’t give you many reasons for optimism. But Roland Garros is her second home and she finds a way to lock herself into this zone where she is completely unplayable. Remember last year when she was so nearly knocked out against Naomi Osaka? Well she found a way to get herself back into that contest and a week or so later, she was lifting the trophy for the fourth time.
This is about ignoring noise and pressure and focusing on what makes her unbeatable on clay (and finding a way to defeat Ostapenko). If anyone can string together a fortnight’s worth of performances, then it’s her.
Cambers: The first thing Swiatek needs to do is take a breath and remind herself that she has won the French Open four times. It has been hard to watch her the past few months, looking so stressed on court. Some of that might be hangover from her one-month suspension. Her aura has definitely disappeared, for now. When she is tested, it’s almost a case of just waiting for her to unravel.
It won’t help her mindset to see her arch nemesis, Ostapenko, in her section of the draw, though. Ostapenko has beaten her six times out of six, and if they meet in Round 4, it will be a massive test of Swiatek’s mental strength. It might not be easy to get that far, either, with Raducanu and Kostyuk in her section. Swiatek needs a couple of good wins to settle, and if she does, then her confidence will grow. On form, it’s asking a lot for her to win the title for a fifth time, but it might take just one good match, or even something in an individual match, for her to flip the switch.
Which American will advance the furthest in Paris?
Connelly: You have to start with Gauff. She’s 19-4 in her past four French Opens, and she reached the semis last year and the finals in 2022. Andreeva does lurk on her side of the draw, but Sabalenka, Swiatek and Paolini are all on the other side. She’s the No. 3 betting favorite, per ESPN BET, and with Sabalenka and Swiatek meeting in a hypothetical semifinal, you could say she has a case to be No. 2.
On the men’s side, give me Tommy Paul. His draw is not incredibly conducive to a run — he might face two-time runner-up Ruud in the fourth round and Alcaraz in the quarters — but I think he’s the best American clay-courter among the men at the moment, and Taylor Fritz‘s draw isn’t significantly better. Sebastian Korda did reach the fourth round in Paris at age 20 in 2020, but he’s just 5-4 at Roland Garros since, and he’s a pretty dismal 3-4 on clay this year. So I’ll say Paul.
Maine: It certainly seems like Gauff is the clear answer. In addition to her past success at the tournament, she has been playing arguably the best clay tennis of her career this season. She reached the final in Madrid, recording a dominant 6-1, 6-1 win over Swiatek in the semis and a straight-sets victory over Andreeva in the quarters, and then reached the final in Rome. While she didn’t get the trophy there either, she made a statement with a gutsy, marathon victory over Zheng Qinwen in a semifinal clash that lasted over three-and-a-half hours.
Now ranked No. 2, Gauff brings momentum and confidence — and a hunger for more — to Paris. Reigning Australian Open champion (and fellow American) Madison Keys could be a potential quarterfinal opponent, and Gauff could face Andreeva or countrywoman Jessica Pegula in the semis, but a final appearance seems well within reach given how well she has been playing as of late.
On the men’s side, Paul certainly had an impressive run in Rome, and does have a repossessed truck to fight for after all, but it’s hard to see him getting past the opponents Bill mentioned. Still, I’m not sure another American will get further than him. Although you never know, perhaps we might get more Cinderella runs like we saw in Melbourne from Learner Tien (who faces Zverev in the first round) and Alex Michelsen (who will play a qualifier).
Hamilton: Well everyone’s going for Gauff, so I’ll have to say … the same. I have her down to make a deep run and she could well become the first American woman to win the competition since Serena Williams in 2015. Gauff’s come so close in the past, and has developed an all-court game. She has those two finals to her name on clay this year and though she fell to Sabalenka in Madrid and Paolini in Rome, she’s building form nicely ahead of Roland Garros.
On the men’s side, Paul has that unfortunate draw where he’ll likely run into Ruud and Alcaraz. Ruud will likely get past him there. Elsewhere, Korda’s struggling for form on clay, Tiafoe’s never got past the third round, and Fritz’s best finish is the fourth round, so it’s hard to see anyone ending the 26-year wait for an American champion on the men’s side at Roland Garros.
Cambers: Gauff is the obvious pick on the women’s side, and she looks to have a straightforward path to the quarterfinals. Gauff has played good, consistent tennis this clay-court season and has shown remarkable resistance, given that her serve and forehand remain technically vulnerable when her confidence is not there. Peyton Stearns was superb in Rome, and if she gets going, she could be genuinely hard to stop. She does have Zheng as a possible third-round opponent, though, which could stop her in her tracks. Gauff is most likely.
On the men’s side, the Americans have a tough draw all round, with most of them in sections with some big names. Paul should make the last 16, but Ruud could be waiting for him there; Ben Shelton has a game that could be good on clay but has Alcaraz in the way. Fritz has a tough first-rounder, but if he gets past Daniel Altmaier, he could be the one. Korda and Frances Tiafoe are in the same quarter. Even if clay is not his best surface, Fritz could emerge as the best chance.
Is this the most wide-open French Open in recent history? Which player could surprise in the next two weeks?
Connelly: With Swiatek and Djokovic both struggling with confidence and form, you can certainly make the case for something wide open. But if you squint just right, it sure seems like we could be cruising to a pair of 1-versus-2 finals (Sinner vs. Alcaraz, Sabalenka vs. Gauff). The fact that no one could take advantage of Sinner’s monthslong absence to make a name for themselves (or even take his No. 1 ranking) was, to me, a pretty big indictment of the depth on the men’s side, and it would take a pretty big upset to keep us from Sinner-Alcaraz. (Not that I would complain about finally getting a Sinner-Alcaraz Slam final.)
The women’s side wouldn’t need many upsets to bust wide open, however. Depth is immense right now, and beyond Sabalenka, Gauff and Swiatek, you can make a pretty credible case for Andreeva, Paolini, 2024 Olympic gold medalist Zheng, 2023 French Open finalist Karolina Muchova, an in-form veteran such as Elina Svitolina or, dare I dream, Naomi Osaka. Sabalenka might have to get past Collins, Amanda Anisimova (who beat her in Toronto last year) and Zheng (who just beat her in Rome) to get to Paolini or Swiatek in the semis! There are obstacles everywhere you look in the women’s draw.
Maine: On the women’s side, I think it seems more wide open than it has since Swiatek has emerged as the dominant force on the surface. But with that said, I wouldn’t be surprised by deep runs, or even a title, from a number of players. I think Keys served as a reminder to many that they, too, were capable of winning Slams, and it will be interesting to see the residual impact of that in Paris. Paolini reached the final last year and is coming off an incredible run in Rome, winning both the singles and doubles titles. Why not her, and why not now?
As for the men, I’m with Bill. This is a two-way battle between Sinner and Alcaraz. Combined, they have won the past five major titles, and I don’t see that trend stopping now. Because you asked so nicely, I’ll say No. 14 seed Arthur Fils has the (ever-so-slight) chance to pull off a surprise upset in the fourth round against Sinner. With the home crowd behind him, and some steady clay results this season (including a semifinal appearance in Barcelona and the quarterfinals in Monte Carlo), he could find some magic and thrill the French crowd. And then things would truly get interesting.
Hamilton: So it’s pretty open, but not the most open in history. On the women’s side, Swiatek’s form is shaky, but she’s still probably favorite. But if she doesn’t win, then I think Paolini could end up lifting her first Grand Slam title, fresh from her triumph in Rome. Then you have the emerging force of Andreeva, the brilliance of Gauff and the others who know how to win massive matches on clay like Sabalenka and Zheng. But I still think it’ll end up being a Swiatek-dominated tournament.
On the men’s side, it’d be great to see an Alcaraz-Sinner final, but I’m tipping — and have done for a long while — Draper to do something special at Roland Garros. The Brit is in brilliant form and has managed to find a way to make himself more durable. If it comes together for him, he can win the whole thing.
But it seems predestined for a match-up between Alcaraz and Sinner, with Alcaraz winning. Though, dare we dream, one day, it’d be great to see a French player win a title again there.
Cambers: I don’t think it’s the most open in history. I have a long memory, and B.R. (Before Rafa) nothing was guaranteed on the men’s side, as Gaston Gaudio might remind us. Alcaraz has the best form and is the defending champion, so he deserves to be favorite, especially after beating the returning Sinner in the Rome final. Sinner also looked good in Rome, and if he finds anything like the form he did against Ruud there, then he will be very hard to stop. Behind them, Ruud, Zverev and Djokovic will have a chance, while Jack Draper is now a genuine title threat on every surface. It would be a surprise should one of Alcaraz or Sinner not win the title.
The women’s title, though, is very open, not least because Sabalenka has not quite matched her hard-court form on clay this spring. With Swiatek enormously vulnerable — on recent form — the door is open for someone unheralded to come through, and it would be no surprise should someone from outside the top 10 reach the semis and maybe further. Gauff will be there or thereabouts, but Paolini could be the one, riding high on confidence after her brilliant Rome.
Who is the most likely player to win their first Grand Slam title at this year’s French Open?
Connelly: Andreeva. Her career has already been a series of incredible breakthroughs, not least of which was upsetting Sabalenka to reach last year’s French Open semis. She has already won a pair of 1000-level events in 2025, and against players not named Gauff or Sabalenka she’s 26-3 this year. (And she has beaten Sabalenka twice in the past year!) She’s ready for another breakthrough … if she can eventually figure out how to conquer Gauff, anyway.
On the men’s side, give me Lorenzo Musetti. His draw isn’t awful — his toughest opponent before the semis might be Holger Rune — and he went 7-2 at Roland Garros last year, with both losses coming to Djokovic. He’s 14-3 on clay this year, too. It’s still hard to see past Sinner and Alcaraz in the men’s draw, but Musetti wouldn’t need too many breaks to find himself in the finals.
Maine: I’ll stick with Paolini here. She has come close before and is playing some inspired tennis. Her 6-4, 6-2 victory over Gauff in the Italian Open final was impressive. She is in the same quarter as Swiatek and has never beaten the reigning champion before — including losing to her in the final last year — but it certainly seems as if their momentum has shifted in recent months.
A first-time men’s major champion seems unlikely, but Ruud is a two-time French Open finalist and won the title in Madrid earlier this month. It would be a challenge to defeat Alcaraz in the quarters but certainly not impossible. Ruud had a demoralizing 6-0, 6-1 loss to Sinner in the Rome quarterfinals, but perhaps that would give him extra motivation if they were to meet in the final? I might be reaching here.
Hamilton: I’m going with Paolini and Draper or Ruud. Paolini has that incredible run in Rome behind her, while Draper is oh-so-nearly there to winning a major tournament on clay. Ruud is a two-time finalist and will eventually get over the line. But out of the above — with an honorable nod to Andreeva — it’s Paolini.
Cambers: Paolini will go one better than last year. A change of coach seems to have done the trick and with every week, her confidence is rising. She covers the court so well and has more power than her size would suggest. The experience of reaching the final at Roland Garros and Wimbledon will be massively important, and she has the game to do it. Andreeva would be the other choice. She seems to improve every week; her serve is vastly improved, and she loves playing in Paris, having made her first slam semifinal last year.
On the men’s side, this is a tough one. Alcaraz and Sinner are so strong that getting past one or both will be incredibly difficult. But Ruud is the pick. Twice the runner-up in Paris and once at the US Open, Ruud looked like he might go all the way last year before he got unlucky with illness in his semifinal against Zverev. His first Masters 1000 title on clay in Madrid will have been a major boost, and he has the ability to do the same at Roland Garros.