ALL-TIME CLASSIC! Rafa secures 21st slam in Aus Open comeback for the ages

By Tim Miller / Editor

Ten years ago, Rafael Nadal had his heart broken in a marathon five-set final at the Australian Open, denied by a little known rival by the name of Novak Djokovic, in what he described as the most painful loss of his life.

A decade on, the Spaniard has finally achieved catharsis, coming back from two sets down in a stunning comeback against world number two Daniil Medvedev in what might be the finest performance of one of the greatest careers world sport has ever seen.

In a final marred by repeat outbursts from a parochial crowd – and one court invader – and several more rants from the hot-headed Medvedev, Nadal’s calm demeanour never relented, outlasting an opponent nearly ten years his junior in an incredible display of fitness and mental strength.

Only when serving for the match at 5-4 in the fifth did Nadal’s temperament waver, but instantly breaking back to set up a second chance, the champion would finally outlast Medvedev, 2-6, 6-7 (5), 6-4, 6-4, 7-5.

Nadal’s reward for claiming the monumental five-hour, 24-minute classic is a record 21st grand slam title, at last breaking the three-way stranglehold between himself and long-time foes Djokovic and Roger Federer, enhancing his claim on the title of the greatest men’s player of all time.

The title is also Nadal’s second at the Australian Open, 13 years after his first, joining Djokovic as the only men in the Open Era to have won all four grand slams at least twice.

A war of attrition was almost a foregone conclusion between two of the game’s great returners, and it was clear from the outset that would be the case.

Punctuated with highlights aplenty from both combatants – the greatest a near-accidental forehand winner off a Medvedev smash that squeezed past the Russian’s advance to the net and brought the partisan crowd to its feet – the first four games took 25 minutes to complete.

After following up that escape with a second Houdini effort, Jim Courier remarked on Nine’s coverage that the fans at Rod Laver Arena were being treated to ‘grand theft in broad daylight’.

“He just stole those two points,” Courier exalted.

But after staving off early attacks from the Russian, Nadal would finally falter at 2-2, broken to love amid a slew of uncharacteristic unforced errors.

When Medvedev made it eight consecutive points off the Nadal serve with a second straight love game for a 5-2 lead, Todd Woodbridge remarked the great champion was ‘rattled’.

Given Nadal’s already apparent struggles with the stifling Melbourne humidity, as well as constant concern over his chronic foot injury, his first opening set defeat of the tournament came at an inopportune time.

Key to the capitulation was a whopping 16 unforced errors for the set – just three fewer than in his entire semi-final win over Matteo Berrettini – with Medvedev’s supreme defensive skills wearing down Nadal’s usually laserlike accuracy.

“Alarm bells would be ringing in the Rafa box,” Woodbridge noted.

With an 18-0 record at Melbourne Park after claiming the first set, Medvedev’s grip on the match was secure. But Nadal didn’t just stumble upon 20 grand slam titles; a brilliant slice backhand reminiscent of women’s champion Ash Barty saw Nadal bring up his first break points of the evening, concluding a match-high 40-shot rally early in the second set.

“Incredible! That is a shot that we don’t see in the repertoire of Nadal all that often.” Woodbridge remarked.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

After a watertight first set with just five errors, the Russian had already made seven as Nadal extended his lead to 4-1. Suddenly, though, the second seed’s game lifted again, breaking back after three errant forehands from the Spaniard, to silence a crowd just beginning to find its voice.

“Terrific from Medvedev. Aggressive, inside the baseline, showing some good all-court skill,” Woodbridge said on commentary after a sizzling volley.

Amid an extraordinary run of games that saw four consecutive breaks of serve, Nadal would set up the opportunity to serve for the set with another flash of brilliance – a well-directed drop shot that caught Medvedev wrong-footed.

But with history on the line, and a penchant for blowing big moments at the Australian Open, an incredible missed smash from Nadal with the whole court open proved an ill omen.

While Nadal, stretched to the limit, would save two break points, and even bring up a set point of his own, there was no denying the Russian; even a court invader protesting the treatment of refugees wasn’t enough to distract Medvedev from his goal.

A third break point chance came up as a backhand clipped the line by three millimetres – much to Nadal’s disbelief. When the champion shanked a forehand long, the set was back on serve; whether Nadal had the strength left after a gruelling fortnight to challenge Medvedev again was an unknown.

With rivers of sweat pouring from him, Nadal resorted to towelling himself off after virtually every point.

“He doesn’t want those tennis balls to soak up any moisture because they will get slower,” Courier explained on Nine.

“It will be harder for him to get the ball up high and to get winners past Medvedev. So that’s tactical from Nadal and I’ve never seen him do it.”

Sweat of the colder variety arrived as the set headed to a crucial tie-break; a scintillating backhand down the line finished an epic 84-minute set in sensational style for Medvedev.

“Very rarely in my time watching Rafa have I seen an opponent of his so comfortably absorb all of Rafa’s heavy spin. No answers,” Woodbridge remarked, while Courier opined that even Novak Djokovic himself could scarcely have done better.

“It’s easier for Medvedev than it is for Novak. Because he’s bigger and taller and he’s just as quick,” he said.

Unbroken to the end, though, Nadal would continue to fight as Medvedev, for the first time, showed signs of boiling over. As he attracting even more ire from the crowd after insisting the ballkids at the net hand their balls to the ones behind, the first ‘Siuuuu’ chant of the night was heard as the Russian sent the simplest of tap-overs straight into the net.

Venting his frustration at chair umpire John Blom after being broken, as well as the ’empty brains’ of the fans clearly against him, Medvedev was powerless as the Spaniard this time served the set out, four clean winners securing the deal.

“Nadal’s game has lifted,” Courier said, as the crowd settled in for more.

It appeared a tough lead-in to the final was taking its toll on Medvedev, seen swilling pickle juice at the first change of ends.

“That’s a good sign for Nadal, I’ll tell you that,” Courier said.

Just like in the second set, repeated breaks of serve would follow, the ailing Russian broken, then hitting right back, only to falter once again as the crowd reached near fever-pitch.

“What a turn this has taken,” the American commentator noted. “This is amazing.”

The physical toll of the tournament was plain to see; both players barely able to move, let alone fulfil the rigorous demands of the sport. Yet Nadal’s 35-year old legs had enough strength to serve out the set and force a decider.

Needing to save break points in the first game of the fifth, Medvedev now was the one clinging on.

As the crowd continued to exhibit the behaviour which has proved so divisive this past fortnight, Blom had seen enough.

With the Russian’s legs requiring constant treatment, and Nadal applying constant pressure on his serve, Medvedev would finally crack – a classic forehand down the line giving Nadal his first lead of the evening.

More pressure was to come, with Nadal forced to dig deep to save three break points in a 13-minute game, as the clock ticked past five hours.

No longer merely an epic, the final had officially entered the realm of the all-time greats, behind only Nadal and Djokovic’s 2012 duel as the longest slam final ever recorded.

Remarkably, neither player was backing down. “It’s like we’re back in the first set,” Woodbridge gushed as Medvedev found the strength from somewhere to chase down a drop shot for a winner.

By this point, all the sting had gone out of Medvedev’s service games, the Russian holding twice to send the set to 5-4, with Nadal serving for the championship.

A double-fault showed the strain, bringing the score to 30-30; incredibly, Medvedev would continue to press, bringing up a break point as Nadal was again pushed to the limit. A netted backhand, and it was back on serve, 5-5; the crowd shocked into silence.

Nadal would surge again, bringing up another pair break points that Medvedev was forced to save with clutch serving. But on the third, Medvedev erred again, sending a forehand long. For the second time, Nadal would have to close it out.

Three championship points were brought up by an ace, just his third of the night; then, at last, Medvedev failed to reach a volley. The comeback, and one of the greatest matches in tennis history, was complete.

The result means Djokovic, while ousted from the top of the slam list, remains as world number one.

The Crowd Says:

2022-02-06T09:18:14+00:00

WINSTON

Roar Rookie


He will play in France, update yourself Matt. Only Australians these days allowing themselves to get suckered into this police state mentality. Enjoy it, it yours, but not France, the French people have balls

2022-02-06T09:14:50+00:00

WINSTON

Roar Rookie


That's not Australia. Novax is best in the Australian open, not the US. But now the Australian tournament is no longer an open, fascist state

2022-02-02T14:35:41+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


Thanks for the further research Sheek - intuitively, my guess is that the pro field of 7 / 8 players you recognised was quite a lot stronger than the amateur field of 6 /7 players, as some of the players you listed above in the pro field were super-stars of the game. I think you're right re the pro tournament making it too attractive for the best players not to play (a bit like WSC in the 70s). Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe there's a good reason why I've never heard of Emerson mentioned as a GOAT candidate even though he held the slam record for 30 years --- since he did this during the 60s.

2022-02-02T00:24:59+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Bell31, I looked up the comparative final 8 fields at Wimbledon & US in both 1957 & 67. While some of the players in both amateur & pro didn't mean much to me, I can confirm the pro fields were stronger, even if only marginally. In almost every comparison, I was familiar with 7-8 of the pro players, but maybe only 6-7 of the amateur players. It makes sense, the pro circuit only took the best players willing to come to the dark side, & kept their numbers tight to ensure the best quality possible. It is also apparent the depth wasn't there in the 50s & 60s that you have today. Once you got outside the top 16, the standard tended to fall away quickly. These days the 50th ranked player can upset the 10th ranked player on the odd day.

2022-02-01T07:37:24+00:00

Bell31

Roar Rookie


Thanks for the extra research Sheek - can't deny they had the best players in those tournaments at the time, even if a few names I've not heard of.

2022-02-01T04:38:41+00:00

Paulo

Roar Rookie


No one is disputing that fact. No one. Not one single person. Nada. Zilch. Null people. Numero Zero. I don’t know why you keep repeating it like a meditative mantra. It does not mean Novak would definitely win. Odds are that he could have beaten Nadal, but again, we don’t know. They never played, it never happened. History also says Medvedev beat Novak in straight sets in the last and most recent Open. So if history does tell us something, it’s that Novak’s win was never a sure thing, which you seem to think is. Let’s be clear. Novak has beaten Rafa lots. This is a fact. They never played in this Open though, so who would have won if they had can only ever be an opinion. But you know this I am sure. I suspect you just enjoy the attention. So, I’m gonna take my oft repeated advise and I’m gonna to stop feeding the resident troll now (mic drop and walk away)

2022-02-01T03:23:27+00:00

Jacko

Roar Rookie


Is was all politics and conspiracy theory Sheek. And its never happened before

2022-02-01T03:07:21+00:00

Jacko

Roar Rookie


Paulo... Geez its hard talking to you. Do you do this on purpose or can you just not read and comprehend. History tells us a lot and the fact is Rafa hasnt beaten Novak since 2013 on a hardcourt. Facts....

2022-02-01T02:39:18+00:00

Paulo

Roar Rookie


“Raises a few conspiracy theories doesnt it!” Really? That some anonymous fruit pickers received less media coverage than the World #1 and outspoken vaccine-hesitant tennis player arriving in the country for one of the largest Australian sporting events of the year after announcing on social media he used a loophole to get in? Yea, weird eh?

2022-02-01T02:04:31+00:00

Paulo

Roar Rookie


Geez this is hard talking to you. Are you doing this on purpose or can you just not follow a conversation? No one is denying that fact. “You’re welcome to think Novak would have won, but that is an opinion, not a fact.” You’re asserting your opinion. That’s sweet as, almost everyone else thinks differently, and that’s fine too. Fact is, none of us know for sure what would have happened at the end of the day. It’s all just speculation.

2022-02-01T01:36:37+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Bell31, I'll concede there were 'gaps' in quality on the pro-fields. Anyway, here's some examples from 1957, when Rosewell & Hoad defected to the pro-era, & 1967, the last year of por-era before open championships. 1957 Wembley final 8: Peter Carthorn, Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad, Jack Kramer, William Moss, Ken Rosewell, Pacho Segura, George Worthington. 1957 US final 8: Pancho Gonzales, Fred Kovacs, Danny Pails, Frank Parker, Ken Rosewell, Bobby Riggs, Pancho Segura, Tony Trabert. 1967 Wembley final 8: Earl Buchholz, Owen Davidson, Andres Gimeno, Rod Laver, Barry Mackay, Alan Mills, Dennis Ralston, Ken Rosewell. 1967 US final 8: Luis Ayala, Mark Davies, Andres Gimeno, Rod Laver, Dennis Ralston, Ken Rosewell, Pancho Segura, Fred Stolle.

2022-02-01T01:20:06+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Jacko - no, I'm not, absent is absent. The reason is irrelevant. Unless you want to start talking politics & conspiracy theories.....

2022-02-01T00:38:26+00:00

Jacko

Roar Rookie


Paulo the FACTS are that Novak has not lost to Rafa on any surface other than clay since 2013. FACT not opinion.

2022-02-01T00:19:55+00:00

Paulo

Roar Rookie


If Novak was there, Rafa still wins. Simple. See, writing it out doesn’t change anything and means nothing? You’re welcome to think Novak would have won, but that is an opinion, not a fact. Fact is, Novak did not meet the government requirements to enter the country, so could not compete. We will never know what would have happened had he been there. This discussion is pointless.

2022-01-31T23:10:41+00:00

Jacko

Roar Rookie


Well if Novak was here Rafa doesnt win. Simple.

2022-01-31T22:07:20+00:00

Prez

Roar Rookie


2021 US open final. Medvedev def. Djokovic, 6–4, 6–4, 6–4. Straight sets no tie breaks . Sit down chump.

2022-01-31T21:58:59+00:00

Prez

Roar Rookie


Kyrgios does say some stupid things but his reasons for not playing French and Wimbledon are valid.

2022-01-31T21:54:21+00:00

Prez

Roar Rookie


Maybe, Kokkinatis just won a tournament (pretty weak field though..) and while lost in the first round at AO he has the talent to compete at the top level. But that's besides the point. The days of high ranked men playing doubles is long gone. So the question really is how do tournaments reinvigorate doubles. Having teams and personalities like Special K’s is one way...

2022-01-31T18:54:54+00:00

JW

Guest


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html US gov could grant him an exception as a person of national interest, but not because he's had covid.

2022-01-31T18:50:20+00:00

JW

Guest


it's stated in about 5 places on the federal immigration website that a previous infection with covid isn't a valid medical exemption for international visitors. If you're a resident/citizen you get in unvaxxed but have to quarantine for 2 weeks. plainly stated, even if you don't agree with those rules. and aus isn't the only country with that requirement.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar