For most of tennis’s existence, winning even a single Grand Slam tournament meant a career statement.
From 1990 to 1998, 16 different players won an important tournament, six for the first and only time. If there was a broad narrative involved, it probably had to do with reaching the top spot in the ATP ranking.
An isolated victory in Slam led Thomas Muster to rise to first place in early 1996, as he did with Carlos Moya in 1999. Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Patrick Rafter also reached the top in 1999, as did Lleyton Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten and Marat Safin. would do in the years that followed. At the end of 2003, it was Andy Roddick’s turn to win a Slam (the United States Open) and reach first place.
Since 2004, however, only four men have been ranked No. 1: Roger Federer (310 weeks), Novak Djokovic (308), Rafael Nadal (209) and Andy Murray (41). The top three on that list also won 57 out of the last 69 Slams, and the only narrative that mattered in the past decade was: Who will end up with the most Slam titles? Nadal drew with Federer in 20 with his victory at the French Open in late 2020, and Djokovic, with 17, has been recovering from both for a while.
This makes each defeat noteworthy, especially with the three in the advanced stages of their respective careers (Federer is 39, Nadal 34, Djokovic 33). When Djokovic was kicked out of the United States Open last fall for accidentally hitting a striker with a ball, it was a great missed opportunity to win a Nadal and two Federer titles; Nadal then picked up another when he swept Djokovic in Paris.
Nadal missed his own opportunity on Wednesday in the Australian Open quarterfinals, when he lost only his second two-set lead in Slam and lost to Stefanos Tsitsipas 3-6, 2-6, 7-6, 6-4 , 7-5.
This was a great moment for Tsitsipas, 22, who has now overcome two disadvantages of two sets in consecutive Slams and reached his third important semifinal, the second in a row. It was only his second win over a top 10 player in a Slam as well. But, adhering to the greatest tennis narrative, we must ask ourselves what it does to Slams’ career as well.
Hard court titles are bonus points for Nadal
Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time; There is no doubt about that. And he is a great player of all time general because his dexterity is not limited to clay – he won five Slams on a hard court and two Wimbledons.
His 13 titles at the French Open, however, are obviously the key to his position in the race for the top titles; he has won just two championships outside of Paris in the past seven years (the U.S. Open 2017 and 2019). If he finishes at the top of the list, it will be because of Roland Garros and, as he proved last fall, his dominance in Paris is far from over. He won four consecutive French Opens and lost no set on the way to last year’s championship.
Obviously, a title in Melbourne would have benefited Nadal a lot, and taking an advantage from two sets never fails to be expensive. But this is not your event.
The Australian Open means a lot more to Djokovic than to Nadal
Perhaps the biggest turnaround in history in Djokovic’s search came when he became the best lawn mower in the world; despite the general assumptions we can make about a player who defends himself so well and has a great, but not elite, attack game – that he should be more suitable for earth or clay courts than grass – he won four of the last six Wimbledons, trapping opponents deeply, serving better and forcing many mistakes. He will be the favorite in London when the tournament resumes this summer.
Still, Melbourne is for Djokovic what Paris is for Nadal. He won eight Australian Open titles, including seven from the last 10. If we set the eventual over / under for Slam titles to 22 or 23, that means he needs five or six more. Since almost half of its 17 titles came from Australia, you imagine that at least two future titles, maybe three, will need to come from there too.
Djokovic made it to the semifinals with a four-set victory in the quarterfinals over Alexander Zverev, but his form was not great this fortnight. He lost a set to Frances Tiafoe in the second round, then suffered a mysterious injury against Taylor Fritz in the third round. He survived that match in five sets before defeating Milos Raonic and Zverev each in four, but although those results were incredible for any player alive, it is clear that Djokovic is not in full swing.
Despite the injury, Caesars by William Hill lists Djokovic’s betting odds at -1450 (equivalent to 94% winning chance) against Cinderella’s qualifier and history in the semifinals. But even if we assume that he advances – although we know that the odds do not apply to Karatsev’s race so far – he will still have to face Tsitsipas or Daniil Medvedev in the finals.
Medvedev is a three-time Slam semi-finalist on hard courts and almost overthrew Nadal in the 2019 U.S. Open final; Tennis Abstract’s Elo rankings rank him as the second hard court player in the world. Even though an injured Djokovic is better than almost everyone on this surface, is he still better than Medvedev?
This is a great time for the next generation of tennis
If “Who will end up with the most Slams?” has been the biggest question in men’s tennis for the past decade, so “When will the younger generation surpass the Big Three?” is the second largest. We’ve been asking for a while.
The Raonic-Kei Nishikori-Grigor Dimitrov generation was delayed by injuries and missed opportunities, and there is an interesting dichotomy in the current top 12 ATP: There are four players aged 33 or older, six with 25 or younger and only two among them (Dominic Thiem and Diego Schwartzman).
The group aged 25 or younger showed great potential; we are just waiting for a breakthrough. The top three in this group – Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev – combined to beat Djokovic seven times, Federer six and Nadal five times, but before Tsitsipas’ victory in the quarterfinals over Nadal, they were only 1-7 against the Big Three. in Slams. Now they are 2-7.
We often overstate the effects of intangibles and immeasurables in sports (most of the most important things are indeed measurable), but the role that trust and absolute belief can play in an individual sport like tennis is obvious. Not only did Tsitsipas return to defeat Nadal in five sets, he really made Nadal appear to be his age in the process. Nadal was clearly the most tired player at the end of the game.
The visuals that this victory provided could have a domino effect. If the win is combined with a Medvedev or Tsitsipas title, that could change not only the way we look at the 2021 tour, but also how we look at the race for career titles. Suddenly, the big three may see less big opportunities in general, and those over / under 22 or 23 titles may become 21.
Or, hey, maybe Djokovic dominates Tsitsipas / Medvedev in the finals, and that becomes another false start for the next generation. Despite this, Tsitsipas’ recovery makes the last three Australian Open games even more intriguing than they already were.