Daniil Medvedev led Jannik Sinner 6-3, 5-1, 15/15 on serve. Until this innocuous moment, he was in complete control of the Australian Open men’s singles final.Medvedev then dumped a Serve +1 forehand in the net, and things started sliding away from him in a hurry. His 22-year-old Italian opponent never looked back to record a 3-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 victory to notch his first Grand Slam title.Medvedev barely held on to win the second set, with the writing on the wall in the last couple of games of set two. Sinner suddenly found his mojo and wasn’t missing. In the blink of an eye, Medvedev went from dominating rallies to barely hanging on in the point. Sinner finally relaxed enough to hit the ball. Medvedev never found that freedom again in the match.Baseline Points WonSinner started slowly in the critical baseline exchanges and always looked to be the one trying to force a shot into a location where it didn’t really belong. Then, all of a sudden, things flipped, and you got the feeling that Sinner couldn’t miss, and Medvedev was just a shot away from dumping a groundstroke into the net.Baseline Points Won Per SetSet 1: Sinner 48% / Medvedev 54%Set 2: Sinner 30% / Medvedev 62%Set 3: Sinner 51% / Medvedev 34%Set 4: Sinner 62% / Medvedev 29%Set 5: Sinner 63% / Medvedev 30%Total: Sinner 50% / Medvedev 42%Sinner got crushed from the back of the court for two sets, winning just 38 per cent (28/74) of baseline exchanges. And just like a light switch was flipped, he found the right speed, height, spin and depth that was required to make Medvedev uncomfortable from the trenches. Sinner won 38 per cent of groundstroke points in the first two sets, but managed to win 63 per cent (45/72) in the last two.Sinner went from missing a lot in the first two sets to almost couldn’t miss in the last three.Rally LengthSinner underperformed in short rallies of 0-4 shots in the first two sets, winning just 43 per cent (24/56). It felt like he always had a chance to miss the court, while Medvedev played rock solid, prowling the baseline. Then, in the third set, things wildly changed for the Italian, as he won 61 per cent (22/36) of critical short rallies in 0-4 shots. Over the last three sets, Sinner won a remarkable 58 per cent (56/97) of short rallies to run away with the title.The average rally length for the match was a lengthy 5.57 shots. Sinner struggled mightily in this area for almost two sets and then basically couldn’t miss in the three most important sets of his life.Forehands vs. BackhandsSinner’s forehand started slow, with just five winners in the first two sets while contributing 17 errors. It then caught fire in set three, amassing 17 winners and 26 errors over the remaining three sets.In stark comparison, Medvedev accumulated eight forehand winners in the first two sets, but only managed five over the remaining three sets. Medvedev hit eight backhand winners for the match, while Sinner managed five. This match developed into a contest where both players tried to play aggressively from the back of the court, where not missing took precedence over cracking a winner.Overall, Sinner won just one more point than Medvedev for the match (142-141). But that’s not how it felt. Medvedev dominated the first 85 minutes of the contest to win the first two sets. Sinner took a stranglehold on the remaining 139 minutes to win the title.It’s not how fast you start. It’s how strong you finish.

Last November, Jannik Sinner led Italy to their first Davis Cup title since 1976.On Sunday night, he ended another drought just like that one.Sinner battled back from two sets down to defeat Daniil Medvedev in the final of the Australian Open, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3, to not only capture the first Grand Slam title of his career, but to become the first Italian man to win a Grand Slam title since 1976.Adriano Panatta won Roland Garros that year.Sinner is the third Italian man—and the fifth Italian player, male or female—ever to win a Grand Slam title.He's also the only one of the group to win the Australian Open.ITALIANS TO WIN A GRAND SLAM TITLE (men and women, all-time):~ Nicola Pietrangeli [1959 & 1960 Roland Garros]~ Adriano Panatta [1976 Roland Garros]~ Francesca Schiavone [2010 Roland Garros]~ Flavia Pennetta [2015 US Open]~ Jannik Sinner [2024 Australian Open]Sinner’s first Grand Slam triumph won’t move him up in the rankings—he came into the Australian Open at No. 4 and he’ll leave at No. 4—but he will cut the gap between himself and the No. 3-ranked Medvedev from 1,065 points to 455 points (8,765 to 8,310).He’s currently tied for highest-ranked Italian player in either ATP or WTA rankings history, alongside Panatta, who got to No. 4 in 1976, and Schiavone, who also went as high as No. 4 in 2011.But with his momentum going as it is—he’s now 27-2 since the US Open—it seems to be only a matter of time before the 22-year-old becomes the first Italian player ever to reach the Top 3.

Para que esos dos hombres junten sus manos y se emocionen al mismo tiempo, sentados en la despedida de uno de ellos, se han tenido que enfrentar 40 veces, se han quitado títulos que ansiaban más que nada en el mundo, se han hecho llorar de rabia y tristeza, se han buscado el uno al otro el punto débil para explotarlo sin misericordia, se han perseguido y citado por todo el planeta durante dos décadas para verse en las finales de los torneos más importantes. Para que estos dos hombres junten sus manos y se emocionen al mismo tiempo, han tenido que ver, 40 veces, como la victoria de uno implicaba la derrota del otro; han tenido que ver 40 veces cómo la euforia de uno provocaba el abatimiento del otro. Y ni así.Se desconoce si Federer, sin Nadal, hubiera sido el tenista más grande de la historia; de igual modo le ocurre al hipotético Nadal sin Federer. Juntos, sin embargo, y repartiéndose los títulos, se han elevado hasta donde les fue posible, han construido aquello que permanece para siempre en la memoria de los espectadores, más allá de hermosas gestas individuales o dominios avasalladores: una rivalidad, un antagonismo, un duelo inacabable que contraponía dos maneras contrarias de vestir y dos maneras contrarias de jugar, pero una sola manera de competir: la de pedir perdón cuando la suerte te favorece, la de respetar a tu rival y sufrir con sus lesiones, aceptar la derrota, no pensar sólo en ti en la victoria, reconocer la grandeza del otro y comprender que todo lo bueno que eres tú, lo eres porque hasta ahí te ha llevado el contrario.Todo eso desemboca no sólo en la petición de Federer de jugar el último partido de su carrera en Londres junto a Nadal en el mismo lado de la red, ni en la imagen icónica de dos hombres llorando el uno junto al otro, sino en algo impresionante en la historia del deporte por tratarse de una rivalidad tan prolongada: pocos fans de Nadal le desean el mal a Federer, pocos fans de Federer le desean el mal a Nadal. Amarlos no significaba odiar al otro. Y lo que ellos enseñaban en la pista, se aprendía fuera de ella. Si ya es difícil de por sí ganar más de 40 Grand Slam entre los dos, cómo de difícil tiene que ser hacerlo educando a los espectadores que te ven; cómo de difícil tiene que ser, en un deporte tan ocupado por padres alimentando rencores, competitividad y arranques de furia en las pistas de sus hijos, enseñarle a los jugadores de tenis que se gana mucho más cuando reconoces en la derrota que el otro fue mejor, y que ese partido nunca es el fin del mundo. Que se gana más, infinitamente más, cuando se aprende a perder.Se conocieron en Miami 2004 cuando Roger tenía 22 años y Rafa 17. El suizo todavía tenía melena que agarraba con coleta, y era el número 1 del mundo; el español, número 32, le ganó 6-3/6-3. Lo que dijeron al salir de la pista lo repitieron en los quince años siguientes. “Su golpe tiene mucho efecto, eso hace que la pelota bote muy alto, y ese es el problema que he tenido hoy. Traté de evitarlo, pero no supe. Ha conectado puntos impresionantes”, dijo Federer. “No le he dejado desarrollar su propio juego. Si puede jugar como quiere, te gana 6-1/6-1″, dijo Nadal. 18 años más viejos, Federer dijo en su despedida: “Estar junto a Rafa ha sido maravilloso”, y Nadal dijo: “Una parte de mi vida se va sin él”. Los dos rompieron a llorar sin remedio, primero Federer, luego Nadal, cuando la despedida se hizo inevitable. El suizo cogió la mano del español (“Volvería a repetir este viaje mañana mismo”, dijo de su carrera), y las manos de los dos se entrecruzaron mientras reían y lloraban.Una imagen dulcísima y delicada -una escena íntima de dos atletas bajo la luz pública, los mejores de la historia en su deporte-, que atenta contra un mundo en extinción, el de las emociones reprimidas, la hombría del héroe que no dice te quiero, no besa a otro hombre ni le lleva de la mano a ninguna parte si no es su hijo; la del antiguo pero moderno hombre heterosexual que teme que determinados gestos afectuosos puedan malinterpretar sus gustos o ser objeto de burla y sospecha; la del hombre, en definitiva, que teme, frente al hombre que no. Y así fue cómo, de la manera más natural y sencilla, que es como más profundidad tiene un gesto político, dos tenistas que llevan casi veinte años dando un recital de golpes dentro de la pista ofrecieron uno más, demoledor, fuera de ella; una fotografía que expresa el amor y el respeto al que pueden llegar dos rivales que crecieron queriendo ganarle el uno al otro. Y ni así perdieron algo por el camino.

Nineteen-year-old Carlos Alcaraz will on Monday become the youngest World No. 1 in Pepperstone ATP Rankings history (since 1973) after winning his first Grand Slam title at the US Open Sunday.Alcaraz entered the 2021 US Open as the World No. 55. With his win against 23-year-old Casper Ruud in the championship clash in New York, he is the first teenage World No. 1 and the fourth man from Spain to achieve the feat, joining his coach Juan Carlos Ferrero, Carlos Moya, and Rafael Nadal.The Murcia-native arrived at Flushing Meadows as the No. 4 player in the Pepperstone ATP Rankings. His leap to World No. 1 is tied for the biggest in history. Three other players have surged from No. 4 to No. 1 between one Pepperstone ATP Rankings release: Moya (15 March 1999), Andre Agassi (5 July 1999) and Pete Sampras (11 September 2000).Alcaraz has rewritten the record books en route to the pinnacle of men’s tennis. Earlier this year he became the second-youngest player to win two ATP Masters 1000 titles (Miami and Madrid), only behind Nadal, who did so in 2005. Alcaraz also became the youngest ATP 500 titlist in series history in Rio de Janeiro and claimed another crown at that level in Barcelona.The 19-year-old leads the ATP Tour with 51 wins this season, moving him five victories clear of second-placed Stefanos Tsitsipas (46). With his US Open triumph, Alcaraz also climbed to first place in the Pepperstone ATP Live Race To Turin, putting him in pole position to become the youngest year-end World No. 1 in history.Alcaraz became the first player to reach the top of men’s tennis’ mountain the Monday after the US Open since his coach, Ferrero, ascended to No. 1 after the 2003 tournament. Alcaraz’s final against Ruud was the first men’s singles championship match at a Grand Slam in which both players who had never been World No. 1 were competing for the top spot.Alcaraz is the 28th player to reach World No. 1, making him the sixth active player to climb to the top spot. The teen joins Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Nadal, Andy Murray and Daniil Medvedev, whom he replaced at the pinnacle.Alcaraz (19) and Ruud (23) are the second-youngest Top 2 in the history of the Pepperstone ATP Rankings, only trailing World No. 1 Jimmy Connors (22) and World No. 22 Bjorn Borg (18) in 1975.

“I swear to God, I’ll f–king take this ball and shove it down your f–king throat!.” — Serena Williams before a national and international TV audience to lineswoman Shino Tsurubuchi during the 2009 US Open. Well, we media folks have done it again. We’ve taken indisputable, recurring and conspicuous facts and buried them to create a sustainable fiction in service to nervous, cautious lies. It’s known as the Tiger Woods Media Pandering Syndrome. It’s not enough that Woods and Serena Williams were superior in their sports, among the all-time best. To that, unfiltered nonsense had to be infused: They were the most noble to have ever played. Their unparalleled goodness may never be surpassed. They were the most extraordinarily positive influences, role models, humanitarians, offspring, spouses, parents and selfless crusaders who have touched our otherwise miserable, desperate souls. This week, coast to coast and via all form of media, Williams was crowned as more than a world championship tennis player. She is a woman of extraordinary valor and class. Doesn’t matter how much evidence to the contrary, and there’s plenty. It was wishful, ignorant, obligatory and unnecessary rubbish. Or are the Tiger Woods Impaired Driving Academy and the Serena Williams Charm School coming to a strip mall near you? Tennis may never again be “graced” by a woman who was such a relentlessly rotten winner and worse loser. She, and only she, was the reason she won or lost. If she extended credit to an opponent, it was heard as insincere, brief, parenthetical and culled. Was it mere coincidence that many in attendance at Williams’ second-round win, Wednesday, felt entitled to boorish, bully behavior in support of Williams, cheering opponent Anett Kontaveit’s errors including double faults? During and after the match, judging from her silence, Williams, media personification of the sportswoman, was good with that. Williams’ livid, wild-eyed tantrum at the chair ump during the 2018 Open — he’d detected she was cheating, which she denied, via signals from a coach before she shouted, among other things, “You’re a thief!” — was also cheered by the obnoxious. Williams later dubiously excused herself by explaining her behavior as an attempt to strike a blow for women’s rights. Sure enough, selectively blind and deaf media lined up to buy that “social activism” fiction. As always, she threw a fit on her own behalf only. The woman whose rights were trampled that day was newcomer Naomi Osaka, left in tears for the audacity to have beaten Williams in the final, as US Open chair Katrina Adams took the court microphone to declare disappointment for all in the outcome as Williams will always be her and our champion. SEE ALSOAdams, a black woman, later amended her claim to explain she was “thrilled” to be standing on the podium with “two women of color.” The head of the US Open held an admitted bias based on race rather than tennis. Even Williams’ last go at Wimbledon, this summer, was tethered to reports of excessive self-entitlement. Wimbledon held a Centenary Celebration marking 100 years of its Centre Court. Past champs, including injured Roger Federer, flew in. Williams blew it off. According to UK media, she was miffed that the five luxury courtesy cars she and her entourage requested and were provided, were expected to be returned the day after a player is eliminated. House rules. After losing in the first round, claimed the reports, Wimbledon refused her request to hang on to the cars for the duration of the tournament. So Williams bolted, to hell with that ceremony and Wimbledon. Weeks later in Cincinnati, ticket-buyers lured by a last live look at Williams were treated to her recurring gracious side. Crushed in the first round, she bolted, refusing a farewell to the crowd on the court microphone, then refusing to attend a post-match media session. As for that vulgar, threatening 2009 episode with that Open lineswoman, she actually continued to verbally abuse her as she apparently correctly concluded that there was no way anyone would have the temerity to disqualify her for such abhorrently low conduct. Or would the No. 30 seed have been granted such an indulgence? Afterwards, she was incensed by the mere suggestion that she owed that lineswoman an apology: “An apology? From me? Well, how many people yell at linespeople?” Yeah, hers was standard tennis behavior. She later claimed she apologized. The recent movie “King Richard,” a varnished tale of the Williams sisters’ often unhinged and bigoted father and mentor — Serena was its executive producer — this year won for Will Smith the Academy Award for Best Actor. Yet it has been a colossal box office bust. Reasons given: the COVID pandemic and its streaming on HBO Max. Reasons not given are that the discerning public has grown sick of the Williams family’s act, tired of advertisers and media shoving Serena down our better senses as someone we all love and admire. This week, ESPN’s lead Open voices, Chris Fowler, John McEnroe and Chris Evert, swapped obsequious, all-glory-to-Serena sonnets — artificially sweetened fairy tales. Having witnessed much of Williams’ excessive misconduct, there is nothing better to conclude than that their commentary was transparently and intentionally dishonest. Tiger Woods Pandering Media Syndrome. Don’t believe what you see and know, believe what you’re told to believe. Some truths are none of your business.Media can now finally stop ignoring Serena Williams’ rotten behaviorBy Phil Mushnickhttps://nypost.com/2022/09/01/media-can-now-finally-stop-ignoring-serena-williams-rotten-act/

Just as Zverev, Tsitsipas and rest of the Next Gen seemed to be consolidating their hold on the ATP's future, the 19-year-old's rapid rise effectively relegated that group to the shadows.There has been no limit to the praises that have been sung about Carlos Alcaraz over the last three months. In fact, even though he’s only 19 and may be at the top of the game for the next 20 years, it already seems as if we’re running out of superlatives to describe his play. When Alcaraz won a point late in Sunday’s final in Madrid with an exquisitely precise drop shot-lob combination, all Jim Courier of the Tennis Channel could say was, “The kid’s incredible.” What else do you need to know?To me, the most telling compliment that Alcaraz has received came from his opponent in that final, Alexander Zverev. After complaining, perhaps rightfully, about his late finishing times during the week in Madrid, Zverev said, “For me to play a final against Carlos Alcaraz, who for me is the best player in the world right now, in a Masters 1000 event, is difficult.”It wasn’t “the best player in the world” part of Zverev’s quote that struck me. It was the way he used “Carlos Alcaraz” as if it was short-hand for all-time tennis greatness, the way “Roger Federer” and “Novak Djokovic” and “Rafa on clay” have been for so long. Zverev is No. 3 in the world, and has been on tour for nine years, but even he speaks of Alcaraz as a kind of legend in the making.Which brings up a question: What happens to Zverev’s generation—the Next Gen—now that a younger player looks set to assume the aura and mantle of the Big 3? As of January, when 26-year-old Daniil Medvedev nearly won his second straight major title in Australia, the line of succession seemed to be intact. While Nadal ultimately won in Melbourne, Medvedev, Stefanos Tsitsipas, and Matteo Berrettini were the other three semifinalists. Along the way, Berrettini managed to keep Alcaraz in his place—barely—by beating him in a fifth-set tiebreaker in the third round. By March, when 24-year-old Taylor Fritz beat Nadal to win the title in Indian Wells, the Next Gen seemed to be expanding and consolidating its hold over the ATP’s future.Since then, Alcaraz, with some help from the Next Gen itself, has relegated that group to the shadows. Medvedev, Berrettini, and Fritz have been sidelined with injuries. Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Felix Auger-Aliassime all suffered spring slumps. Casper Ruud, Denis Shapovalov, and Jannik Sinner haven’t sustained their momentum from week to week. One bright spot came when Tsitsipas defeated 22-year-old Alejandro Davidovich Fokina in the Monte Carlo final. It was an important title defense for Tsitsipas, and a big breakthrough for the entertaining Davidovich Fokina. But the glory didn’t last long. Tsitsipas lost to Alcaraz a few days later in Barcelona.Alcaraz hasn’t just been better than the Next Gen; he has also been more likable. No telling umpires that they’re stupid or corrupt; no slamming his racquet against their chairs or tossing it in the direction of a ball kid. Alcaraz gives points back to his opponents if he thinks he won them through bad calls. He flashes his wide smile even when he misses shots. He plays with an infectious passion and is a natural at engaging the crowd. He has already broken through the wall that normally separates tennis from the mainstream sports media in the U.S.; even columnists who specialize in basketball and football know his name. The same may be true at your local tennis club or park.Alcaraz says he’s “probably one of the favorites” at Roland Garros this year. He’s right, of course, but that also qualifies as a bold statement in the era of Nadal. Since Rafa won his first French Open title in 2005, it has been considered sacrilege even to entertain the idea that someone else might be the favorite in Paris, or worthy of being mentioned alongside him. After Madrid, where Alcaraz beat Rafa and Djokovic for the first time, no one is going to deny that the teenager has a good chance to match Nadal by winning his first major at 19. For lovers of historical symmetry, it would make sense. In 2005, Rafa also took the tour by storm, and came to Paris having won two big clay-court tune-ups, in Monte Carlo and Rome. The expectations were excruciatingly sky-high for him at Roland Garros, but he lived up to them.For all of his brilliance, Alcaraz’s ascent doesn’t spell the Next Gen’s demise. Medvedev, who will return soon, beat Alcaraz easily in their only meeting, at Wimbledon last year. Tsitsipas made the final in Paris in 2021, and took a set from Alcaraz in Barcelona. Andrey Rublev has had a good season, and Zverev and Auger-Aliassime are playing better now. None of them is older than 26. We also don’t have much of an idea of how well Alcaraz will fare on grass this year.But Zverev is right to say that he’s better than all of them right now. None of the Next Genners can beat you in as many ways as the Spaniard can. And whether it’s Medvedev’s transition game, or Tsitsipas’s backhand, or Zverev’s second serve, each has a weakness that Alcaraz doesn’t have. He doesn’t need any pace to generate incredible power on both his ground strokes. He doesn’t use the drop shot as a bailout, but as another weapon. He can be wild with his shot selection at times, but he has a way of reining it in, and playing better, when the match is on the line. He doesn’t just throw punches like a boxer, he moves like one, too.See what I mean? There’s no limit to the praises we can sing about Carlos Alcaraz at the moment. Even if he doesn’t win at Roland Garros this time, he has done something that the generation ahead of him couldn’t: Made himself appointment viewing for tennis fans, and hopefully sports fans, everywhere.By Steve Tignor

Tennis fans have been left devastated for Simona Halep after the two-time grand slam champion announced her withdrawal from the Miami Open on Thursday.The Romanian star was scheduled to play Australia's Daria Saville in the second round but took to social media to announce that she wasn't able to play.The former World No.1 said she suffered a thigh injury during her Indian Wells semi-final defeat to Iga Swiatek last week and it caused her discomfort again while training on Wednesday.The 30-year-old said she will now miss the Charleston Open and start of Romania's Billie Jean King Cup campaign."While I was practising in Miami yesterday I felt a sharp pain in my left leg," Halep wrote on Twitter."I had been struggling with the thigh since my semi-final in Indian Wells and hoped it would improve, but I went for an MRI last night and unfortunately it showed a tear."My body needs time to heal and as a result I will be out of competition for three weeks."This means I have had to make the super tough decision to pull out of Miami, Charleston and Fed Cup."While it feels like really disappointing news to share, I am keeping the confidence from my great start to the year and am motivated to do everything to be ready for the clay-court season."Thanks for your continued support through the highs and lows."

Por Tony NadalLa final de ayer fue uno de los partidos más importantes de la carrera deportiva de Rafael. Si no el que más. En ese encuentro doblegó a su favor, hasta que Roger Federer o Novak Djokovic digan lo contrario, el desempate por el liderazgo en la historia del tenis. Como ya le ocurriera al serbio en el último US Open, creo que los nervios propios de un duelo tan crucial tensaron en exceso a mi sobrino en los primeros compases contra Medvedev. Durante la primera manga y hasta bien entrado el segundo set, sus golpes estuvieron atenazados y le fue imposible desplegar el buen juego que había venido haciendo en sus rondas previas.Durante todo ese tiempo tuvo un porcentaje muy bajo de primeros saques, su golpe de derecha no hacía daño y el revés, que la ronda anterior había funcionado a la perfección, no era suficientemente ofensivo. Su porcentaje de errores también estuvo muy por encima de lo que es costumbre en él. Y de ahí la clara victoria en este parcial del jugador moscovita, que se mostró muy superior a Rafael. A pesar de conseguir nivelar el juego en el segundo set y de tener muchas opciones de ganarlo, acabó por cederlo en el tie break y por meterse en muy serios problemas.En toda la última semana mantuve muchas esperanzas de que Rafael consiguiera el título, y así se lo había dicho en varias ocasiones a mis hijos, que me apremian siempre con la misma pregunta, pero en ese momento sentí que prácticamente se habían esfumado nuestras opciones. Teniendo en mente todo lo que ha ocurrido este último medio año, y que ya se ha mencionado suficientemente, uno de mis mayores temores era que el encuentro se alargara más de lo deseado. Y ahí fue cuando mi sobrino me volvió a sorprender por un número de veces del que ya he perdido la cuenta. Cuanto más alejados estábamos de la victoria, con dos sets a cero y 3-3, 0-40 en el tercero, de nuevo me admiró su autocontrol, su fe inquebrantable en la victoria, su capacidad de lucha y su tenacidad.Nunca me ha gustado hablar públicamente y más de la cuenta de un familiar, y mucho menos ensalzarlo. Sin embargo, hoy me cuesta no hacerlo. Pocas veces he visto una lucha tan titánica y un partido tan épico. Siendo el hecho de ganar el mayor número de Grand Slams de la historia un acontecimiento por sí solo altamente reseñable, lo que más destacaría son las condiciones tan adversas que ha logrado superar para conseguirlo.He visto en Instagram un vídeo conmemorativo del ATP Tour de esos 21 títulos en el que, curiosamente, la primera imagen era la de Rafael niño en un partido que, además, recuerdo perfectamente. Jugó contra un rival bastante mayor que él y, por tanto, muy superior. Cayó claramente derrotado y, sin embargo, he visto en ese vídeo la misma mirada luchadora y apasionada que fue recuperando en los momentos más adversos de la final. Esa lucha no te garantiza la victoria, de hecho no siempre ha sido así, pero te asegura la satisfacción personal y la tranquilidad de saber que cumpliste con tu compromiso.En cierta ocasión, un extenista me comentó que se arrepentía de no haber peleado cada partido de su carrera al cien por cien y se lamentó de que se diera cuenta de eso demasiado tarde. Cuando se lo conté a Rafael, intentado que él aprendiera la lección, me contestó: “No te preocupes, que eso no me va a ocurrir. Cuando me retire, me iré con la tranquilidad de haber hecho todo lo que estaba en mi mano”. Y lo que ocurrió en la Rod Laver Arena, fue una demostración más de ello. Esa gesta creo que trasciende el mérito deportivo. Es, más bien, una buena prueba de lo que da sentido y mérito a la carrera de Rafael.

It was after midnight in Queens and Novak Djokovic was on his fourth shirt of the evening. He had been grinding for over three hours against Matteo Berrettini, the world No. 6. He had chased points to every corner of Arthur Ashe Stadium and even dropped a set. Yet when Berrettini looked across the net, dragging his feet like a punch-drunk fighter, all he saw was a crisply dressed 20-time major champion. Djokovic was still fresh. The fittest man in tennis could fall behind, last three hours, and still find ways to make his opponent impossibly uncomfortable. Others in the sport’s history may have served harder or played prettier tennis, but as Djokovic closes in on a record 21st major title, there is no longer any question that he is the greatest best-of-five-set player the sport has ever seen. “With him, it looks like he doesn’t care,” Berrettini said. “Actually he takes energy from that set that he lost.”Heading into Friday’s semifinal against world No. 4 Alexander Zverev, just two victories from a Grand Slam, Djokovic has played 26 matches at major tournaments this season. And for all of his dominance, he lost the opening set more than a third of the time.But on each of those nine occasions, Djokovic stormed back like the undead in a horror movie. The most dramatic reversal came in the French Open final last spring, when Stefanos Tsitsipas took a two-set lead, only to collapse in 4 hours. He simply couldn’t live with him for that long.As Tsitsipas and so many other rivals have learned the hard way, Djokovic was born to play best-of-five. Even at age 34, his endurance is made to break spirits. “He has this ability—and that’s why he’s probably the best ever—just to step up his level all the time,” said Berrettini, who also lost to Djokovic in the Wimbledon final despite winning the first set. “It doesn’t matter how well I play.”For 1 hour and 17 minutes on Wednesday night in New York, Berrettini battled to take one of the hardest-fought sets of his life. He punched and counter-punched. He stayed in long rallies. And finally, he broke Djokovic’s serve. The good news was that he had proven his opponent was human. The bad news was that he had to do it again—twice. The first set had dragged on for so long that it was barely five minutes shorter than the women’s quarterfinal match that had preceded it in Arthur Ashe Stadium. Berrettini left the court to gather himself. Djokovic was just warming up. What he produced next was by his own estimation, “the best three sets I’ve played in the tournament, for sure.”By the second set, Berrettini was no longer competitive in Djokovic’s service games. And by the third, the momentum had shifted irreversibly. “Do other guys make you feel like you’re losing this badly when it’s one set all?” John McEnroe said on the ESPN broadcast.Djokovic’s long game is much more than rope-a-dope. He settles in for an unflinching display of ferocious mental strength. Not only does he stay out of his own head, he also reminds himself that he can drop a set and still do damage by chipping away at his opponent’s stamina with his dogged defense. “He doesn’t give me any free points,” Berrettini said. “I have to earn every single point—it doesn’t matter if I serve or if I return….He makes me sweat.”Next up for Djokovic is Zverev, who matches up with him as well as anyone on the pro circuit. Zverev was the man who sparked Djokovic’s racket-smashing meltdown at the Olympics in Tokyo by winning 10 of the last 11 games against him in the semifinals. Zverev went on to take the gold medal and hasn’t lost a match since, reeling off a tournament victory in Cincinnati and cruising to the semis in Queens.The problem for Zverev is that, while he can cause Djokovic fits in best-of-three matches, he has never beaten him best-of-five. In the longer format, Djokovic takes the brutal pace of tennis and injects a healthy dose of marathon running.“I like to play best-of-five, especially against the younger guys,” Djokovic said. “I think the experience of being on the big stage so many times does help. Physically I feel as fit as anybody out there. So I can go the distance. Actually I like to go the distance.”The impact soon turns from physical to psychological. Not only does Djokovic wear you out by stretching rallies into some of the longest on tour—nearly five shots per point, according to the stats database Tennis Abstract—he also convinces you that there is no way to put a shot past him, even on your own serve. On Wednesday, Djokovic won a dizzying 44% of his returning points.“I know what my strengths are. I stick to them,” Djokovic said. “I’ve worked over the years to perfect my game so that my game can have literally no flaws…I want my opponents to feel that I can get any ball.”Rivals have known this about him forever. Three-time major winner Andy Murray believes that above anything else, Djokovic’s unparalleled movement is what sets him apart. He covers so much of the court that no shot feels safe.“He had unbelievable flexibility, was able to defend the corners extremely well, which I think is a bit different maybe to the other two,” Murray said, weighing up Djokovic against Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. “Not that Roger and Rafa don’t defend very well, but it’s more the way that Novak moves, it’s quite different. The way he can slide into his backhand even on hard courts, he shrinks the court that way.”

Andy Murray said he dreaded having to do a press conference after his 2-6, 7-6 (7), 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 loss to Stefanos Tsitsipas at the US Open on Monday. He didn’t dread it because it had been a painful defeat, in four hours and 48 minutes, to the No. 3 seed, in a match he might have won if another point or two had gone his way. No, Murray dreaded doing his presser because he wouldn’t be able to spend much time discussing the match, or his own, often-excellent performance, or the brilliance of his young opponent.“Rather than talking about how fantastic he is, how good he is for the game, how great it was for me that I was able to put on a performance like that after everything that’s gone on the last four years,” Murray said, “I’m sitting in here talking about bathroom breaks and medical timeouts and delays in matches. That’s rubbish.“I said to Nicola [Arzani, of the ATP], I don’t want to do press tonight because I know I'm going to sit here and it’s going to seem like I’m just smashing him.”But Murray did sit there, and he did smash him. He accused Tsitsipas of gamesmanship, of deliberately disrupting his rhythm with between-set bathroom breaks, with a medical timeout, with a change of racquet at a critical juncture, with a sneaker change at another juncture. The final straw was the eight-minute break that Tsitsipas took after the fourth set to change his clothes, and which sent Murray into a tirade that lasted, off and on, for the rest of the match.“It’s not so much leaving the court, it’s the amount of time,” Murray said. “When you're playing a brutal match like that, you know, stopping for seven, eight minutes, you do cool down.”Murray went on to say that something needs to be done to “make it less easy for the rules to be exploited.” For instance, if you take a medical timeout, you forfeit the next game. Or, you give everyone a single, five-minute break per match, and that’s it.“I sit on the player council, and we speak about it all the time,” he said.Murray is right, the between-set break and the MTO have become scourges in tennis. Players obviously need to use the bathroom sometimes, and it’s easy to see why they would want to change clothes on a humid day like today. But for fans, the delays grind the action to a halt; for opponents, they can unfairly break their momentum, and the natural rhythm of a match. It isn’t just Tsitsipas, of course; plenty of other top players, old and young, take strategic breaks. But Tsitsipas’ reputation in this regard preceded him, and likely contributed to Murray’s rage.“I spoke to my team before the match about it and said to expect that, prepare for it if things were not going his way. So I was trying to do that,” he said.As for Tsitsipas, he said his actions were within the ATP’s guidelines.“As far as I know,” he said, “you’re allowed to have two toilet breaks to go change your clothes in a five-setter, and one in a three-setter. I followed that throughout my entire career. I’ve never broken any rules, so I see no reason that that’s a problem anyways.”Anything that can be done to make bathroom breaks less frequent, I’m for it. Short of that, if there’s a way to give the player stuck on court a chance to rally and stay warm, I’m for that, too.As Murray said, it’s a shame that the primary topic of conversation afterward wasn’t the quality of the contest itself. If it had taken place in the final or semifinal of a major, we’d be talking about it as a Top 5 match of the year. In a sense, each player came away a winner.For the first time since his comeback from his latest hip surgery, the 34-year-old Murray showed that he can compete with an elite opponent. He was broken just three times over five sets. He attacked and defended at the same level as Tsitsipas. He brought back some of his golden oldies, like his blistering crosscourt forehand and topspin backhand lob. He was 26 of 35 at the net. And he stayed with his younger opponent physically until the final shot. Perhaps Murray’s only slip was the routine backhand he netted at 6-4 in the second-set tiebreaker, which would have put him up two sets to love.“I’ve said it a lot over this last few months, that I know I’m capable of playing that tennis,” Murray said. “I guess tonight I proved some things to a certain extent.“Overall I did well tonight, but I’m really, really disappointed, really disappointed after that, frustrated, all those things. Really disappointed.”From Tsitsipas’ perspective, he showed that he can take a quality opponent’s best punches and come back with something even stronger. The most impressive moment from him came in the first game of the fifth set. Murray was serving, and revving up the crowd against Tsitsipas. Instead, it only served to rev up Tsitsipas, who raised the pace of his ground strokes, broke serve, and held out the rest of the way for the win. Tsitsipas found a level Murray couldn’t rise to.“There came a moment when I had my second break of the set, I think it was in the fourth set, where I really started feeling my confidence raising, feeling much more free on court,” said Tsitsipas, who plays Adrian Mannarino next. “That was the moment. That was also the indication that I have what it takes to overcome this obstacle today.”Tsitsipas said he and Murray will have to “chat” about what happened on Monday. Whatever they decide, and whatever the rest of the tennis world decides, it was a heckuva five-hour way to welcome fans back to the US Open.By Steve Tignor