On a day when everyone at the ATP Finals seemed to have a point to prove, the strongest statement came from Novak Djokovic. Stefanos Tsitsipas had the misfortune to be the unwitting agency through which it was delivered.
Tsitsipas opened his Red Group campaign in the knowledge that an undefeated run to a second title at the season-ending championships would propel him to the top of the world rankings for the first time. Instead, the Greek was roundly put in his place by Djokovic, who is ranked eighth and seeded seventh, but looked every inch the de facto No 1 as he claimed a 6-4, 7-6 (7-4) win that was often inspired and never less than excellent.
Twelve months ago, as Djokovic clinched the year-end No 1 position for a record seventh time, deserved reward for a season in which he narrowly failed to become only the third man in history to complete a calendar-year grand slam, no one could have foreseen that he would return to Turin at his lowest ranking in four years. Neither would many have imagined that, despite an underwhelming showing at the majors, Tsitsipas would enter the season’s final turn with a chance to claim top spot.
Yet Djokovic’s refusal to take a Covid vaccine left him unable to defend his Australian and US Open titles, while the ATP’s decision to strip Wimbledon of points, made in response to the tournament’s ban on Russian and Belarusian players, meant that the Serb’s seventh victory in SW19 gained him no advantage in the rankings.
Tsitsipas, meanwhile, has accumulated more match wins this year than any other player, yet failed to survive the first week at Wimbledon, where his composure deserted him against Nick Kyrgios, and failed to survive his first match at the US Open, where his game deserted him against Colombian qualifier Daniel Elahi Galan. Throw in the fact that Tsitsipas had lost his previous eight meetings with Djokovic, and there was clearly much riding on the outcome for both men.
Could Tsitsipas get the statement win that would lend credibility to his bid for top-dog status? Would Djokovic be able to shrug off the unaccustomed indignity of entering the arena first, as is the lot of the lower-ranked player, and lay down an early marker in his attempt to equal Roger Federer’s haul of six ATP Finals titles? Above all, would the contest bear comparison with their electric semi-final meeting nine days ago at the Paris Masters, where Tsitsipas stood just three points from victory in the final-set tiebreak?
In hindsight, the answer to the last of those questions was apparent more quickly than anyone suspected at the time, for the match was effectively over from the moment Tsitsipas netted an off-forehand to concede his opening service game. Djokovic is an unrivalled frontrunner and, when he conjured a majestic angled dink en route to consolidating the break, he flashed a conspiratorial grin towards his box. They all knew he was on to something.
So it proved. Serving with trademark precision and consistency, the five-time champion navigated the remainder of the set without facing a break point. He remained impregnable on serve all the way to the second-set tiebreak, where he stole an early march with a stunning backhand pass, delivered at full stretch and with Tsitsipas bearing down on the net behind a fine backhand approach. There would be no way back for the Greek.
“I started off the match very well,” said Djokovic. “With the big servers like him, you maybe have a good chance in the first or second service game of your opponent to get some opportunities. That was the case. It was presented to me. I was really sharp and focused. I used the chance.
“Obviously, that affects the whole game. Even if it’s the first game, I knew it was on his mind. I just wanted to be consistent and keep serving well, which I did. I closed out the match in the tiebreak with the two big serves, which always helps.
“I managed to read his serve in the tiebreak when I needed to. I made some great passing shots. It was a match decided by small margins.”
That appraisal was echoed by Tsitsipas – “The issue was starting that first game lousy and not getting into the match, picking up very late,” he said – but the Greek suggested he is in no hurry to reach No 1.
“I deeply believe that I can reach that spot one day,” said Tsitsipas. “I’m not really that much in a rush.
“Of course, it would have been better if it happened this week. I am more here for the marathon of all. I see the bigger picture, the longer run. I have a lot of opportunities next year to play some good tennis.
“If it comes, I’ll be very happy, my country will be very happy, my family will be happy. I just have to concentrate on myself, let that thing pass. If it happens, that’s great news. But I shouldn’t be obsessing too much about it.”
While Djokovic offered an emphatic reminder of his credentials as a past world No 1, and Tsitsipas’s climb to the summit ended before the first staging post, a notable feature of Daniil Medvedev’s season has been his struggle to live up to the ranking he inherited from the Serb in late February.
Medvedev, who topped the standings for a total of 16 weeks until he was supplanted by Carlos Alcaraz after the US Open, has not looked quite the same since losing January’s Australian Open final to Rafael Nadal from two sets to love up. Normally one of the tour’s most consistent performers, the Russian has won just two titles this season.
If that is indicative of a psychological hangover from events at Melbourne Park, however, an opening match against compatriot Andrey Rublev promised to be the perfect restorative. Medvedev had prevailed in all but one of their five previous meetings, and when he fought back from 5-2 down to take the opening set, saving seven set points along the way, it looked likely that history would repeat itself.
But Rublev, a combustible character whose reputation for letting his frustration get the better of him precedes him, seemed determined to prove that his lone victory over Medvedev, achieved last year in Cincinnati, was no fluke. Sticking to the formula that had brought him success for so much of the first set, he held his position on the baseline, remained committed to attack, and used wide serves to open up the court for his sledgehammer forehand.
It all came down to a final-set tiebreak that was like a standalone match in its own right. Having rattled along at a brisk pace for most of the afternoon, the pair suddenly became embroiled in long, grinding rallies, with neither man willing to seize the initiative. At 6-3, Rublev held three match points, but once again he was pegged back. This time, though, Rublev held his nerve, finally prevailing 6-7 (7-9), 6-3, 7-6 (9-7). Point proven.
“Normally after something like that, I don’t think I would win a match,” said Rublev. “Being able to turn around a match and win – win not only like the second and third sets, but win the third set on a tiebreak 9-7, [after] being 6-3 up, this is something that never happened to me.”