Daniil Medvedev ends Novak Djokovic’s calendar

Daniil Medvedev ends Novak Djokovic’s calendar slam dream in US Open final. As Daniil Medvedev stood in the tunnel of Arthur Ashe Stadium before the US Open final, the last man standing in front of Novak Djokovic’s historic grand slam attempt, he was asked in his pre-match interview exactly what he learned from losing to Djokovic in the Australian Open final in February. He responded calmly and without hesitation: “Well, I learned that I have to be much better.”

Over the following two hours he simply was. For the majority of his third major final Medvedev bullied Djokovic from the baseline, he erected a defensive wall on his half of the court and he served as if he was standing from a tree. In the process Medvedev thwarted Djokovic’s shot at immortality, outplaying the world No 1 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 to win his first major title at the US Open.

We’Re committed to keeping our quality reporting open. By registering and providing us with insight into your preferences, you’re helping us to engage with you more deeply, and that allows us to keep our journalism free for all. You’ll always be able to control your own .

Have a subscription? Made a contribution? Already registered?

Sign In

Instead of the second ever grand slam of the open era Medvedev engineered his own startling achievement: one day after the third women’s major champion born in the 2000s was crowned, he is just the second men’s player born in the 1990s to win a major title. Medvedev is also the third Russian man to win a major title after Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Marat Safin.

Despite arriving in the final having registered a perfect year at the four major events, so many of Djokovic’s matches have been a struggle. Djokovic had completed only one match in straight sets and his six lost sets were the most conceded en route to any of his 31 grand slam finals. By comparison Medvedev had been spotless, losing just one set, and spent five hours 35 minutes less time on court.

As the encounter began, Djokovic was immediately out of sorts. He led the first game 40-15 but Medvedev quickly locked in, drawing Djokovic into long rallies and sweeping up early unforced errors as the Serb tried to escape them. Medvedev immediately responded to his opening break with a ballistic service game, slamming down first and second serves as he breezed through his opening game to consolidate his break.

As Medvedev marched through his own service games with ease, Djokovic struggled. After he dug himself out of a self-inflicted 0-2, 15-40 deficit, he held until the end of the set but his frequent serve-and-volley attempts, which he also employed in his previous round against Alexander Zverev, suggested a lack of confidence in baseline rallies with Medvedev.

Medvedev closed off the first set with 15-15 first serve points won and only one double fault despite destroying second serves.

The second set began with the familiar sight of resistance as Djokovic generated triple break point on Medvedev’s opening service game but squandered all three chances, thumping his thighs in anger after netting a routine slice.

Then Djokovic generated two break points at 1-2 in the second set. On the first attempt, after returning the ball the big screen malfunctioned mid-point which forced them to replay the point. Medvedev then boldly saved both break points, one with a sweet winning drop volley and then the second with a brilliant backhand down the line. In the midst of another squandered opportunity, Djokovic demolished his racket, lost the game and then immediately conceded his service game.

Despite his famed ability to recover from any deficit, Djokovic had faded. Medvedev coolly served out the set and then he broke serve to open the third set. As Medvedev locked down on the baseline, breezing through service games and punctuating victorious points with calm fists to the sky, Djokovic’s legs looked increasingly heavy with every point. He meekly surrendered the second break with a failed serve-and-volley attempt.

Medvedev stood on the baseline to serve for his first grand slam championship at 5-2 but as he reached championship point, he double faulted and lost the game. The crowd, so often Djokovic’s nemesis over the years, roared the world No 1 on as he held serve, who then sat in his seat and cried. At the second time of asking, however, Medvedev held his nerve and finished the job.

As the world’s eyes rested on Djokovic, Medvedev crept in to win his first major title. It is so well deserved for a supreme player who was a late arrival at the top table of his generation and has continually put himself in the position to succeed. This was his third grand slam final at 25 years old, now both brimming with experience and at his physical peak. Before the tournament he had been clear about his intentions to do his very best to ensure that Djokovic, and no other player, could add to their major tally. He is a man of his word.

As for Djokovic, this has still been an incredible year. He has clinched his record weeks at No 1, which now stand at 337, he became the first man in history to win two of every grand slam tournament and Masters 1000 event and he levelled Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer on 20 major titles. But there is a reason why no man has won a grand slam since 1969 and on a cool September evening, as Djokovic laboured to the finish line, that was clear for all to see.

You’ve read 10 articles in the last year

… we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s high-impact journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.

With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence, offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new American administration, Brexit, and the world’s slow emergence from a global pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.

Candidates representing the two parties that have governed Germany in a “grand coalition” for 12 out of the past 16 years tore into each other’s record on Sunday night, in a televised election debate that saw centre-left frontrunner Olaf Scholz declared winner despite swipes from his conservative rival.

In the second of three televised debates, hosted by Germany’s two public broadcasters, conservative candidate Armin Laschet of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) tried to turn his fortunes around by attacking finance minister Scholz of the Social Democratic party (SPD) over his track-record on tackling money laundering and corruption.

Ahead of national elections in two weeks’ time, polls predict Laschet’s CDU crashing to historic lows as the tenure of its four-term chancellor, Angela Merkel, comes to an end.

“If my finance minister were to work like you, then we would have a serious problem,” said Laschet, who is the state premier of Rhineland-Westphalia.

Germany’s federal finance and justice ministry were raided last week in order to obtain information relevant to an investigation into the government’s anti money-laundering agency, though not to probe Scholz’s ministry itself.

Scholz accused his CDU rival of being “dishonest” for suggesting he himself stood accused of wrongdoing, and boasted of his own effort to modernise the ministry he has led for three years.

Similar attempts to damage Scholz over his links to the Wirecard accounting scandal and the Cum-Ex tax fraud scheme failed to achieve the desired effect.

Laschet’s line of attack was softened by the fact that financial scandals tend to be too complicated to be summarised in TV soundbites, and that questions about failed oversight duties could equally be asked about his own party.

A snap poll published after the debate showed Scholz repeat the clear victory he had achieved in the first debate, with 41% of viewers describing the SPD candidate as the most convincing, compared with 27% who said the same of Laschet and 25% who opted for Green party candidate Annalena Baerbock.

Baerbock cut a more relaxed and lively figure than in the first debate but found herself pushed into a moderator role as the two men got stuck in what she mocked as Vergangenhaltsbewältigungen, raking over the past of their coalition wrangles.

The Green candidate criticised the largest two parties for their unambitious carbon emissions targets, arguing that Germany needed to switch off its coal power plants significantly earlier than 2028, as planned.

She declined to rule out holding coalition talks between the SPD, the Greens and far-left outfit Die Linke. She said Die Linke was “of course a democratic party” that did not represent as extreme positions as the far-right Alternative für Deutschland on the other end of the political spectrum.

Hi, I’m bigsportslive Founder. I’m a web developer at living in Bangladesh. I am a fan of sports, technology, and photography.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *