Tennis is a sport that is both easy and hard to watch. On one hand, it is a beautiful sport to observe, with players’ graceful movements and the rhythmic sound of the ball hitting the racket and then the court. It can easily put you in a state of zen. On the other hand, it can be difficult to fully understand the game beyond the surface level.
For most casual viewers, tennis may seem like two people hitting a ball at each other until someone wins. But there is so much more to it than that. Players like Serena Williams, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal showcase incredible skills and athleticism that are accessible to anyone watching. However, to truly appreciate the nuances of the game, one must dig deeper.
One player who exemplifies the complexity of tennis is Daniil Medvedev. He is often hailed as a player who can do anything and everything on the court. He mixes different styles, tactics, and positioning, sometimes seemingly for his own amusement. With his disheveled hair and quirky demeanor, he gives off an air of being tennis’s Dr. Weird.
To the casual observer, Medvedev may appear as just a player standing far back on the court, chasing down everything and waiting for his opponent to make an error. But there is much more to his game than meets the eye. In a recent Australian Open quarterfinal match against Hubert Hurkacz, Medvedev showcased his strategic brilliance.
One of the first things people notice about Medvedev is his preference for returning serve from the baseline, almost in the parking lot. This unique positioning makes it difficult for opponents to ace him and forces them to try and serve and volley, a strategy that most players dislike. However, in the match against Hurkacz, Medvedev surprised everyone by standing on the baseline during the first game. This unexpected move resulted in a break of serve and set the tone for the match.
Throughout the first set, Medvedev consistently targeted Hurkacz’s backhand, even though the general consensus was that his forehand was the weaker shot. This unconventional strategy led to Hurkacz hitting 104 backhands compared to only 80 forehands, resulting in more unforced errors on his backhand side. Medvedev’s ability to adapt and exploit his opponent’s weaknesses was evident.
However, Medvedev’s game is not limited to a set plan. He constantly experiments with different tactics and shots to keep his opponents guessing. In the second set, he changed his return position to go after Hurkacz’s forehand. While this strategy didn’t work as well, it showcased Medvedev’s willingness to try new things.
As the match progressed, Medvedev’s fatigue became evident. He started to tire in the fourth set, allowing Hurkacz to stage a comeback and force a deciding fifth set. But even in his exhaustion, Medvedev’s cleverness shone through. He strategically took breaks, engaging in conversations with the chair umpire to disrupt Hurkacz’s rhythm.
In the final set, Medvedev relied on his reserve tanks to hold his serve and wait for his opportunity to break. He played conservatively, hitting big serves and carefully selecting when to attack. In the seventh game, he forced two backhand errors from Hurkacz and broke serve. He then closed out the match with a serve and volley, a tactic he rarely employs, showcasing his adaptability and creativity.
Medvedev’s style of play may not appeal to everyone. The points can be long, and his strategies are subtle and often require close observation. But for those willing to look beyond the surface, there is a wealth of brilliance bubbling under the seemingly mundane. Medvedev’s game is a testament to the complexities of tennis and the artistry that can be found within it.
