If Stefanos Tsitsipas is indeed the second best player in the world right now, what does that make Reilly Opelka? When the American made the claim on behalf of Tsitsipas, on the eve of their meeting in the semi-finals of the Toronto Masters, it quickly became a source of debate in tennis circles. What of Daniil Medvedev, the actual world No 2? What of Rafael Nadal, a 20-time slam champion and one of only five players to have beaten Novak Djokovic this year?
Perhaps the more pertinent question was why Opelka, who beat Tsitsipas 6-7 (2-7), 7-6 (7-4), 6-4 to reach his maiden Masters 1000 final, ventured the opinion in the first place. Maybe he was trying to heap further pressure on an opponent he knew would be fancied to win. Maybe he was trying to lull Tsitsipas into a false sense of security with an exaggerated show of deference. Or perhaps the answer really was contained in the single line – a 1? – that Opelka scrawled on a TV camera afterwards.
Whatever the answer, this was a richly deserved victory for the 23-year-old, who not only held serve throughout but also showcased the less obvious qualities – sharp movement, power and resilience from the baseline, an eye for a volley – that have underpinned his success this year. This was Opelka’s first win over a top-five opponent, and his ranking will now rise from his current position of No 32, ensuring he achieves his goal of being seeded at the US Open. No one will want to see his name in their quarter of the draw at Flushing Meadows.
Opelka, who had talked up Tsitsipas as having the best forehand in the game ahead of the match, hit almost twice as many winners off that wing as the Greek – 21 to 11 – as he racked up a total of 46 unreturnable shots, 27 of which were groundstrokes. As implied by his self-deprecating decision to sign a TV camera “servebot” after his quarter-final win over Roberto Bautista Agut, the 6ft 11in powerhouse is more than just a big serve.
“I think it was just an accumulation of pressure put on him,” said Opelka of his decisive breakthrough in the final set. “I think he felt that, you know, I was serving well, was winning points in a lot of different ways on my serve. Even when he hit some good returns, I would crush some forehands, or I came up with some good volleys.
“I think I was winning so many points, with so many different ways and different shots, that the pressure just kind of stayed on him. That game I broke, I didn’t do anything special necessarily. I put in some good returns, but I think I got a double fault, I got the first ball, that shank backhand he hadn’t missed all match … maybe it was just a fluke game, but I’d like to think that it was pressure I put on him with holding so easily the whole match.”
Opportunities against the serve were few and far between throughout. With Tsitsipas barely able to put a return in court initially, the first opportunity to make inroads against the serve fell Opelka’s way. In the third game, a scorching backhand winner brought up two break points for the American. But Opelka hooked a forehand fractionally wide on the first, and on the second Tsitsipas snuffed out the danger with a kick serve that threatened to drag his opponent into the front-row seating.
There would not be another break point until the fourth game of the second set. By that time, Tsitsipas had long since retreated fully five metres behind the baseline to return. It was a strategy that reaped dividends in the first-set tiebreak, where the fine margins by which the match would be decided became crystal clear. At 1-1, Opelka swatted a high forehand volley long to concede a mini-break, and in the blink of an eye he was staring at a 4-1 deficit. It was not an advantage that Tsitsipas was about to relinquish, and he concluded the breaker in clinical fashion, sealing the set with an ace.
“He definitely improved his returning,” said Opelka. “You can just tell how his mind works so efficiently. He came out not really putting a return in play, and also he wasn’t hitting them that clean on the racket. Come five all in the first set, a lot of balls start coming back and then that stayed. He had to adjust. You can see. You know he’s a thinker and you know he’s sharp, he’s got a high tennis IQ. So it was expected. But that’s what separates him, that’s why he’s elite; it separates him from the rest of the pack.”
When Tsitsipas saved a break point early in the second set with a forehand that brushed the net tape, only moments after receiving a warning for coaching, it began to look as though it might be his day. But a disastrously ill-timed double fault handed Opelka a 6-4 lead in the second-set tiebreak, and Tsitsipas promptly framed a backhand, flinging his racket to the ground in fury.
Chances were once again at a premium in the decider, where Tsitsipas saw his only break point of the match saved by an Opelka volley before faltering in the next game to fall behind irrevocably.
“When you get no rhythm, it’s kind of difficult,” said Tsitsipas. “It kind of ruins your game very silently, very slow. The main factor there is just to forget all that, and just play. That’s how most of these guys win. It’s not that I was scared or afraid of [doing that]. It’s just I was missing shots in the rallies. I was missing experience from the baseline rallies that could have [given me] better understanding of how to play and where to play. I had very few of those opportunities, and it kind of cost me at the end.”
Opelka will face Daniil Medvedev, the top seed, in Sunday’s final. The Russian played near-flawless tennis to defeat a below-par John Isner 6-2, 6-2 in just 54 minutes.