Match Stats/Report - Sinner vs Medvedev, Australian Open final, 2024

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Jannik Sinner beat Daniil Medvedev 3-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 in the Australian Open final, 2024 on hard court

It was Sinner’s first Slam title and Medvedev’s third runner-up finish at the event, including losing from 2 sets up in 2022 also

Sinner won 142 points, Medvedev 141

Serve Stats
Sinner...
- 1st serve percentage (88/144) 61%
- 1st serve points won (65/88) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (30/56) 54%
- Aces 14 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (34/144) 24%

Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (95/139) 68%
- 1st serve points won (72/95) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (20/44) 45%
- Aces 12 (1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/139) 27%

Serve Patterns
Sinner served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 6%

Medvedev served...
- to FH 51%
- to BH 43%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Sinner made...
- 98 (51 FH, 47 BH)
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- 19 Forced (10 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (98/136) 72%

Medvedev made...
- 105 (45 FH, 60 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 runaround BH
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (8 FH, 2 BH)
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (105/139) 76%

Break Points
Sinner 4/9 (7 games)
Medvedev 4/12 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sinner 33 (22 FH, 3 BH, 8 FHV)
Medvedev 29 (11 FH, 8 BH, 6 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BHOH)

Sinner's FHs - 7 cc (2 at net, 1 pass), 1 cc/inside-in, 4 dtl, 6 inside-out (1 at net), 1 inside-out/longline pass, 1 inside-in, 1 longline, 1 longline/inside-in
- BH passes - 3 dtl

- 4 FHVs were swinging shots - 2 cc (1 non-net, 1 from behind service line but marked net point)), 2 inside-in (1 from baseline)

Medvedev's FHs - 4 cc (1 return, 1 pass at net), 1 dtl pass, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 longline/inside-in, 1 running-down-drop-shot drop shot at net
- BHs - 4 cc, 2 dtl. 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in/cc

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Sinner 69
- 44 Unforced (18 FH, 25 BH, 1 FHV)
- 25 Forced (12 FH, 11 BH, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.1

Medvedev 72
- 50 Unforced (21 FH, 27 BH, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 12 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sinner was...
- 12/18 (67%) at net, including...
- 0/1 serve-volleying, a 1st serve

Medvedev was...
- 25/36 (69%) at net, including...
- 3/4 (75%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 3/3 (100%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
Two-part match that transitions fairly smoothly from Medvedev dominating at start to Sinner distinctly having better of things at the end, with neither player poor when getting short end of stick. Medvedev is the match-maker as he plays beyond his normal comfort zone for aggression and pointedly takes returns and groundstrokes earlier, while using net considerably. Sinner plays his rock solid strong game. Court is normal paced, with bounce on low side

Match long stats are near even, which is deceptive because match is 2 part affair close to in line with scoreline (turning point actually comes before end of second set, not after it)

Points won - Sinner 142, Med 141
Points served - Sinner 144, Med 139
(or Sinner winning 50.2% of the points, serving 50.9% of them)
Break points - Sinner 4/9 (7 games), Med 4/12 (6 games)

After 2 sets (hereafter referred to as ‘first part’)…
Med’s wons 58.9% of points, serving 44.6% of them
Break points - Sinner 1/3 (2 games), Med 4/11 (5 games)

Remaining 3 sets (hereafter referred to as ‘second part’)…
Sinner wins 56.1% of points, serving 48.9% of them
Break points - Sinner 3/6 (5 games), Med 0/1

So Med more dominant in first part than Sinner is in second
Med’s thoroughly dominant in first part. Holds easily, breaks or threatens to constantly. Sinner only manages to scrape out winning 53% of his service points

Its not full 2 sets superiority but by time momentum shifts, Med’s up a set and 5-1
From there, Sinner breaks to 30, holds to 15 and has break point again as Med serves out second times of asking in 10 points

Sinner’s superiority in second part is a little more nuanced. Comfort comes from facing just 1 break point, but its at precarious time at 3-3 in fourth set
Set 3 is even with no break points until Sinner breaks in deuce game to end it, having just held a deuce game himself to reach 5-4
Its only in Set 4 that Sinner’s able to establish actual superiority (that is, trend of holding more easily than his opponent) that speaks to his having better prospects of breaking and thus, winning.
Med wins 62% of his service points in the period, to compare with Sinner’s barely over even 53% in first part

Cutting things finer than placing dividing line at end of sets -

After 6 games in second set, Med’s won 63% of points, serving 37% of them
Break points - Med 4/11 (5 games), Sinner 0
After that, Sinner wins 56% of points, serving 45% of them
Break points - Sinner 4/9 (7 games), Med 0/1

Putting them together yields virtual equality, but Sinner’s has better of substantial, larger ‘half’ of the match. Would have needed an against trend outcome to see Med finish what he started and pinch 1 of the last 3 sets. He’s holds about even in set 3, set 4 is where he has his sole break point (and at a critical time), but he’s largely outplayed there. A trend which continues in the finale

Medvedev’s match shaping
Generally, Med likes to return from as far back as possible and counter-punch from cozily behind baseline. Making lots of returns (i.e. not giving up freebies) and staying secure off the ground (i.e. not making errors, so its left for this opponent to do so) are how he goes about business of winning points

Not here, especially at the start

He returns from normal or early position. 2-3 paces behind service line to return first serves, further forward against seconds (occasionally, right on the baseline). And he continues to take ball early in ensuing rally, without losing any of his typical flat strikes (as in, low net clearance)

Potential downside for the shift in style is lower return rate and higher blink rate in rallies. Potential upside being reducing Sinner’s time to start rally with comfortable power and to rhythmically continue with it. Per commentary, its out of the blue move and he’d played in his usual way in reaching the final. He’d lost his last 3 matches to Sinner within short span of time

Drastic change like this is liable to lead to complete failure, but Med executes well
Still makes a lot of returns, but takes time away from Sinner - check
Does make a few more errors from the back, but his flat shots in combo with taking balls early pressures Sinner, as ball skims through low. And he takes to attackingly going wide with his shots, too. Well measured stuff and he forces whole bunch of series early on
(He also serves up a storm early on, making 19/22 first serves in first set while serving powerfully)

A very different match up than Sinner with time on hand delivering power hits, Med reacting to them. Med’s aggressor. And that’s the game that overwhelms Sinner for 2 sets
 
Last edited:

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
After 2 sets -
Points won - Sinner 46, Med 66
Points served - Sinner 62, Med 50
Med winning 59%, serving 45%
Break points - Sinner 1/3 (2 games), Med 4/11 (5 games)

Unreturned serves - Sinner 17%, Med 15/50 30%

Sinner 11 winners, forced 3 errors, UEs 21… -7 aggressively ended points/UE differential
Med 15 winners, forced 14 errors, UEs 19… +10

UEs close, but Med dominating the aggressive area and importantly, doing so by forcing errors not hitting winners. Usually, a sign of sound attacking play

Big lead in freebies helps. Can’t hope for more than 83% return rate taking returns from unfamilar position. Odd, rushed and soft FH return, but returns with authority too. And can afford odd unclean return from his position, unlike if he were returning from fence

Second Part - Sinner Ahead
Stats for last 3 sets -
Points won - Sinner 96, Med 75
Points served - Sinner 82, Med 89
Sinner wins 56.1% of points, serving 48.9% of them
Break points - Sinner 3/6 (5 games), Med 0/1

Unreturned serves - Sinner 28%, Med 26%

Sinner 22 winners, forcing 19 errors, 23 UEs… +18 aggressively ended points/UE differential
Med 14 winners, forcing 11 errors, 31 UEs… -6 aggressively ended points/UE differential


Looking at that, Med’s done quite well to keep things to being broken just once a set. Sinner’s done better on all fronts

What changes?

For starters, Med’s serving strength. He has good in count, while taking considerable amount of the serve. It’s a good move to keep second serves from being clinically hammered, but dampens his offence
Continues to return from normal/early position without being effective. Was more surprising that he was so effective early on than that he can’t keep it up

Does he ease back the aggression from the back? Or does Sinner step up to take charge of action more? Some of both. Med continues to play close to baseline, but doesn’t look for wide angled, attacking plays as much. He plays something like his usual counter-punching game, but little further up the court. He’s not bad at it and doesn’t get sloppy or outright passive. Plenty of tough, long rallies. Its type of game where he’s counting on hitting one more ball than opponent, but opponent is even more secure

Sinner doesn’t take charge of action per se. He’s not attacked and gets better of neutral rallies. Does not overpower Med, even if hitting contest advantage slips his way. He’s able to build up to attacking, but it doesn’t come easy. As match enters fourth and especially fifth set, he seems considerably more energetic, with Med tiring and Med’s serve and ground force dropping off - and then Sinner’s able to command action more by outhitting and pushing him back

Just simple, one baseliner little better than the other of consistency in normal, solid hitting rallying. For Med a step down from actively hitting wide to attack (as opposed to ‘solid rallying’), but he rallies well. Sinner just happens to do so a little better in third set

No easy alternatives for Med. It’d have been some showing to maintain uncharacteristic baseline aggression (both in terms of early position and hitting wide) for even 3 sets to overwhelm a very capable opponent. And he’s certainly capable of topping said opponent in a solid rallying contest. Set 3 is an even contest along these lines, with Sinner edging it out

Its only with Med’s serve and groundies weakening, likely due to tiredness that Sinner gains genuine superiority after third set

And all this is subtle and changes smooth. This ain’t no one minute Med’s lashing balls to corners, next he’s pushing or Sinner going from equal contest trading groundies to hammering Med back with a flick of a switch

From riskily attacking with wide shots, Med eases back into rallying solidly. Maintaining (for him) a forward position throughout and he’s good at the solid game (and given his norm, seems unlikely he can maintain the attacking one indefinitely). Solid game doesn’t exclude flashes of attacking play either

Sinner’’s outplayed by Med’s risky offence and gains equality in even-hitting rallies
And in time, gains superiority in them (outhiting Med), with Med seemingly tiring
And in more time, parleys that superiority to attackingly put Med behind.
All very clinical, matter-of-fact from Sinner. And very good

Action & Stats
Serve-return contest is about even, Med serving a little better, Sinner perhaps shading returning

First serve in - Sinner 61%, Med 68%
Aces/Service Winners - Sinner 14 (1 second serve), Med 13
First serve ace/SW rate - Sinner 15%, Med 14%
Unreturned rate - Sinner 24%, Med 27%

Med’s advantage there in in count is influenced by him taking considerable amount of first serves to get more in later in the match. In first set when he lands 19/22 first serves, serves are first rate and he becomes unbreakable. Serve is toned down when he lands 31/38 in fourth set

He’s got 6 aces in first set, and 4 unreturnables in third (1 service winner, 1 non-clean ace) set to give some idea of different quality of serves across the two sets
Med taking returns from normal position makes him easier to ace than normal

Return UEs - Sinner 6, Med 10
Return FEs - Sinner 19, Med 10

And that’s where Med’s better serving is coming through
Conversely, the UEs is where Sinner maybe returning a little better does

Sinner serves 45% to FH, 49% to BH
He’s drawn 12 FH return errors, 8 BHs

Probably a minor mistake from Sinner there. Its not just a consistency matter. Med’s FH tends to plop down weaker returns too. The new return position has him rushed but in all, he does better than expected making returns and usually, not weakly. Not as regularly firmly as Sinner, but well enough

Winners - Sinner 33, Med 29
Errors forced - Sinner 22, Med 25
UEs - Sinner 44, Med 50

Baseline action involves bit of everything. Good stock rallies, especially BH cc exchanges. Some mild/moderate moving-opponent around play. Attempts at overpowering and getting on attack, hitting wide to get on attack, net play from Med. Divided nature of match means overall figures are very different across first and second parts

UEFIs - Sinner 46.1, Med 43.8, broken down as…
Neutral UEs - Sinner 25, Med 34
Attacking UEs - Sinner 11, Med 13
Winner Attempt UEs - Sinner 8, Med 3

Its suggestive, but remains open to interpretation. On face value, 43.8 is very low and would point to Med simply counter-punching, while Sinner takes all the risks
Clearly, that’s not the case, since Med has just 4 fewer winners, while forcing 3 more errors
There are elements of truth in it though; In second part, Med’s relegated to non-aggression (if not passivity) and bulk of match is the second part

In first part, Med’s moderate attacking (in stats terms, play that’s more likely to force errors than go for winners) is good. Hits wide shots from anything less than solidly firm stock shots. Few errors go with the territory, but he’s got Sinner in all kinds of troubles and giving up FEs

Playing close to baseline, Med’s typical flat shots skim off the court so he doesn’t have to hit with particular power to finish points when going wide
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
In second part, Med doesn’t go in for that type of stuff much, but continues playing from close to baseline. It was risky to go for it, its not passive to not - and toning down on it is more in line with Med’s natural game

Its more Med’s toning things down that changes balance of play than Sinner ticking up. Sinner’s solid even in first part, but forced into defence

Ground UEs are similar for all shots -
- FHs - Sinner 18, Med 21
- BHs - Sinner 25, Med 27

Importantly, Sinner gets better of the neutral BH cc rallies. Med attacks often as not from BH and higher lot of his attacking and more UEs would be BHs than Sinner’s. Lovely BH cc exchanges, both players hitting sweetly - and Med blinking out more errors

Sinner sticks to strong cc shots. He has just 3 BH winners and they’re all passes
Med has 8 winners and they all come in baseline rallies - 4 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in based. The inside-out is particularly impressive. Doesn’t play it often, but often catches Sinner out with it after moving closer to center of court in playing BH cc’s. If he’s outdone in good, lengthy neutral rallies, he’s also more offensively potent and inclined, and there’s nothing easy coming out of Sinner’s solid shots to make that easier

FH winners - Sinner 22, Med 11
Half of Sinner’s FHV winners are swing volleys too. His FH hitting is only better than BH along natural lines of the shots in question, but he’s got bigger hitting advantage over Med on that wing (Med’s BH is typically excellent, FH comparatively less so)

cc’s (4), dtl (4), inside-out (5), Sinner with winners and effective attacking in all directions with FH. Beyond simple winner figures, dtl is particularly effective. Goes there to attack from even stock cc rally, and very capable of doing so against a softer ball

Rallying to net - Sinner 12/17, Med 22/32

Using net in lieu of point-ending FH is a good alternative for Med. He comes in after outmanuvering Sinner and occasionally, manufactures approaches from neutral position (on top of coming in quickly after drawing weak return). Anticipates direction of Sinner’s passes very nicely to look at ease up there. Just a couple of UEs and FEs apiece to go with 10 winners against powerful passes that he reads. Sinner barely coming in and looking to swing volley much of the time when he does

Gist - lot going on. Sinner with strong steady BH, strong FH that doubles as finisher game that he plays throughout. Med in first part taking risks to hit wide while taking ball early effectively with his flat shots scooting through the court and later, toning down to a steady backcourt game, while continuing to use net for offence. How successful each player is varying across different parts of match

Match Progression
Top drawer first from Medvedev. Lands 19/22 first serves (10 of which don’t come back - 6 of them aces), and surprisingly returns from normal (2-3 paces behind baseline) or even early position. Sinner with a not good 15/28 in count helps, and he can only win 4/13 second serve points, with Med sweeping early returns wide

When rally gets going, Med’s proactively hits wide angles off both wings, which with his flat hits, skim low. Moves Sinner around some or puts him away so doing

Med’s first hold is deuce game, and breaks right after in 5 point, all second serve game. Early returns and deep shots do for Sinner. Breaks again to end the set with a BH cc winner and a taxing running up FH dtl pass winner from near service line, after a running chip from bad position forces a half-volley from the at net Sinner

Its 5-1 Med in second set too. Only game Siner wins is a 16 point hold where he has to save 4 break points. Otherwise, he’s broken in 8 and 5 points games, while Med holds all his games to love. Without excess big serving being involved (he serves at 50% for the 3 games)

16 point game has many fine shots and combos of shots, with Sinner finally having to take net to hold. He’s driven to serve-volleying for only time in match to try to keep from going down 2 breaks, but misses easy FHV to go down 5-1. Odd, runaround FH return by Med in the game in the ad court

Game after, where Sinner breaks for 2-5 brings end to Med’s irresistible zoning phase, and action shifts from that to equality. Good, deep shots by Sinner in the game to break. He’s got a break time next go around too in another good game, that Sinner opens with a FHV winner set up by a BH inside-out - a shot Med had been making hay with

Not zoning and not playing well are two different things and down break point, Med reels off last 3 points by forcing errors with his FH and its 2 sets to love

Set 3 is key to the match and its an even set. Set of solid rallying from both players, with Med cooled down from zoning and Sinner’s depth a better than before. The 2 aren’t unrelated, but also not a clear cut case of either causing the other. More Med easing off his on risky attacking shot choices allowing Sinner’s depth to improve than the other way around

No break points until the very last game, but competitive games and just 1 love hold
Sinner serves 28 points for his 5 holds, Med serves 30 points (4 holds and once broken)
First deuce game of set sees Sinner hold for 5-4
Second falls right after, with Sinner breaking on only break point. Med’s FH letting him down with 4 UEs and an FE to a BH line shot and some good returns from Sinner to set the platform for it. Med’s shots are more passive in the game than rest of set

From equality, Sinner moves to having better of things in fourth set. He’s regularly in return games, while holding more comfily
In all, Sinner again serves 28 points for 5 holds, but now Med serves 38. 4/5 of his games go to deuce, including 3 where he faces break points

Med seems to be tiring. His first serve strength is down from earlier, defensive vigour is down (he’s making FEs to types of balls he was putting back in play earlier) and is now fully invested in stock BH cc rallies (as opposed to dual winged, and prepared to hit court opening shot from stock rallies). BH cc rallies are good and solid ones, with Med more often than not blinking up the error

He’s still resourceful. Saves break point in game 2 with a BH inside-out approach shot. Saves another next go around with a BH dtl winner after working Sinner over. And he reaches break point at 3-3 with a just wide enough FH cc that forces error
Sinner aces it away, dispatches a third ball FH inside-out winner after drawing weak FH return with a second serve and lands another ace to hold

Med’s last 2 service games go to deuce too and he’s finally broken to end the set. Misses a surprise BH inside-out to go down break point and gentle second serve is returners powerfully to set him on back foot for the next rally, which Sinner takes with a commanding FH cc

Decider and momentum is firmly with Sinner. He’s fresher, moving better and hitting harder. Med isn’t gone though or even going. Just normally tired after long encounter, still rallying hard
There are some fabulous rallies in the set, as good as anything that’s come before. And however better Sinner looks of stamina, movement and hitting, it doesn’t actually translate to holding any easier

Just the one break. Third ball FH inside-out winner attempt miss by Med and a routine BHV miss second serve-volleying sandwich Sinner almost half-volleying a BH dtl pass winner to make score 0-40. Third ball winner attempts and second serve-volleying speaks to Med getting low on energy. He saves first break point, but Sinner smacks a wide FH cc return on the second that puts him on the attack, which he finishes with consummates by dispatching a FH cc winner

There’s a superb rally in next game with regular direction changers from both players that Sinner again comes away with a FH cc winner on

For only game of the match, Med returns from far back position as Sinner steps up to serve for the match. Gets him to 30-30, with Sinner missing couple of routine groundies, but big FHs (inside-out approach and a dtl winner) wraps things up from there

Summing up, very good match with Medvedev making it so by playing in unusually aggressive fashion. He takes returns early by his standard and hits early from the back, looking for wide shots that stay low and have Sinner in all kinds of trouble. Good lot of net play thrown in too, with clever anticipation at net

So zoning, Medvedev open up 2 set lead before cooling down to an edgy version of his normal, counter-punching & stay-solid game and Sinner’s solid, power-based ground game gains upper hand, with Medvedev tiring more as match ticks on

For Sinner, normal efficient showing. For Medvedev, a necessarily creative and aggressive one that he’s unlikely to be able to maintain. When eases down to a still solid game, but Sinner’s better (more powerful, more secure, more capable of clinically attacking) at that game and moves ahead and onto victory
 

jl809

Legend
Valiant effort from Meddy B. He executed the only strategy available to him given the circumstances and nearly pulled it off. Had he spent less time on court and been less gassed, perhaps he might have gone for a less aggressive approach and tbh it might not have worked as well

@Waspsting do you think this is Med’s best AO final out of the 3? Interested to see how you rate them
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
think this should be 2022, not the previous year (2023)

also worth mentioning Medvedev was on court for 20 hours before this final!

Thanks, correcting


Valiant effort from Meddy B. He executed the only strategy available to him given the circumstances and nearly pulled it off. Had he spent less time on court and been less gassed, perhaps he might have gone for a less aggressive approach and tbh it might not have worked as well

I got the sense he was playing this way (taking balls early) because he felt his usual game wouldn't cut it against this opponent. As it doesn't when he eventually eases back to something like his usual game (still returns from normal position)

He's in a tricky situation where his normal, wall game is good to knock off 90% of players, but probably needs something more against someone like Sinner

I'd have backed him to fall flat - miss a whole bunch of returns and make a fool of himself trying to swipe balls wide and early. What do you think would happen if say, Andy Murray came out one fine day and started playing like that? Med exectues the more aggressive game well, but again, I'd think its not sustainable for him. Sooner or later, he'll go error haywire playing like that

He stops playing like that before that happens. Probably also a good move. If he could play like that regularly, he would (let alone against someone like Sinner)

This 20 hours on court thing... that's on him. His normal game involves long-term taking his opponents legs out, but to do that successfully, you better be sure your own legs are fiddle fit. Otherwise, you end up taking your own legs out with the moderate moving around play

do you think this is Med’s best AO final out of the 3? Interested to see how you rate them
Its up there with '22, where plays in very different style so direct comparison is tricky

First set here is maybe the best I've seen from him playing aggressively (The huge in count is also crucial because he actually does make good lot of attacking UEs, which his serving gives him license to do). But how does that stack up with a high quality wall-showing, with moderate moving-opponent-about playing style? - where he's got plenty of quality showings, including the '22 final

The amount of time he actually outplays Sinner here is relatively brief. Upto 5-1 in second set. He doesn't play badly afterwards, but Sinner's better
In '22, he thoroughly outplayed Nadal for 2.5 sets with the wall-game and Nadal *****-footing around with slices and who blinks first. Out-walling Nadal's no easy job. Style's not so overtly impressive, but its very good tennis (as in, winning tennis) and for Med, very sustainable

Doesn't play badly afterwards there either, but Nadal switches tacks to shot-making and attacking point construction. Med's got same number of winners as UEs across both halves of the match

He's more worn out than his opponent by end of both matches. Given the comfort zone of his style, that's a problem

'22 and here... similar calibre showings
Greater aggression in his (briefer) dominant phase here is higher quality than any part of '22 showing, but probably not sustainable
And solidly good and at very least, not bad rest of the way in both matches, but getting out played by better opponent
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Jannik Sinner beat Daniil Medvedev 3-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 in the Australian Open final, 2024 on hard court

It was Sinner’s first Slam title and Medvedev’s third runner-up finish at the event, including losing from 2 sets up in 2022 also

Sinner won 142 points, Medvedev 141

Serve Stats
Sinner...
- 1st serve percentage (88/144) 61%
- 1st serve points won (65/88) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (30/56) 54%
- Aces 14 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (34/144) 24%

Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (95/139) 68%
- 1st serve points won (72/95) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (20/44) 45%
- Aces 12 (1 not clean), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/139) 27%

Serve Patterns
Sinner served...
- to FH 45%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 6%

Medvedev served...
- to FH 51%
- to BH 43%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Sinner made...
- 98 (51 FH, 47 BH)
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- 19 Forced (10 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (98/136) 72%

Medvedev made...
- 105 (45 FH, 60 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 runaround BH
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (8 FH, 2 BH)
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (105/139) 76%

Break Points
Sinner 4/9 (7 games)
Medvedev 4/12 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Sinner 33 (22 FH, 3 BH, 8 FHV)
Medvedev 29 (11 FH, 8 BH, 6 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 BHOH)

Sinner's FHs - 7 cc (2 at net, 1 pass), 1 cc/inside-in, 4 dtl, 6 inside-out (1 at net), 1 inside-out/longline pass, 1 inside-in, 1 longline, 1 longline/inside-in
- BH passes - 3 dtl

- 4 FHVs were swinging shots - 2 cc (1 non-net, 1 from behind service line but marked net point)), 2 inside-in (1 from baseline)

Medvedev's FHs - 4 cc (1 return, 1 pass at net), 1 dtl pass, 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 longline/inside-in, 1 running-down-drop-shot drop shot at net
- BHs - 4 cc, 2 dtl. 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in/cc

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Sinner 69
- 44 Unforced (18 FH, 25 BH, 1 FHV)
- 25 Forced (12 FH, 11 BH, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.1

Medvedev 72
- 50 Unforced (21 FH, 27 BH, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 22 Forced (8 FH, 12 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Sinner was...
- 12/18 (67%) at net, including...
- 0/1 serve-volleying, a 1st serve

Medvedev was...
- 25/36 (69%) at net, including...
- 3/4 (75%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 3/3 (100%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
Two-part match that transitions fairly smoothly from Medvedev dominating at start to Sinner distinctly having better of things at the end, with neither player poor when getting short end of stick. Medvedev is the match-maker as he plays beyond his normal comfort zone for aggression and pointedly takes returns and groundstrokes earlier, while using net considerably. Sinner plays his rock solid strong game. Court is normal paced, with bounce on low side

Match long stats are near even, which is deceptive because match is 2 part affair close to in line with scoreline (turning point actually comes before end of second set, not after it)

Points won - Sinner 142, Med 141
Points served - Sinner 144, Med 139
(or Sinner winning 50.2% of the points, serving 50.9% of them)
Break points - Sinner 4/9 (7 games), Med 4/12 (6 games)

After 2 sets (hereafter referred to as ‘first part’)…
Med’s wons 58.9% of points, serving 44.6% of them
Break points - Sinner 1/3 (2 games), Med 4/11 (5 games)

Remaining 3 sets (hereafter referred to as ‘second part’)…
Sinner wins 56.1% of points, serving 48.9% of them
Break points - Sinner 3/6 (5 games), Med 0/1

So Med more dominant in first part than Sinner is in second
Med’s thoroughly dominant in first part. Holds easily, breaks or threatens to constantly. Sinner only manages to scrape out winning 53% of his service points

Its not full 2 sets superiority but by time momentum shifts, Med’s up a set and 5-1
From there, Sinner breaks to 30, holds to 15 and has break point again as Med serves out second times of asking in 10 points

Sinner’s superiority in second part is a little more nuanced. Comfort comes from facing just 1 break point, but its at precarious time at 3-3 in fourth set
Set 3 is even with no break points until Sinner breaks in deuce game to end it, having just held a deuce game himself to reach 5-4
Its only in Set 4 that Sinner’s able to establish actual superiority (that is, trend of holding more easily than his opponent) that speaks to his having better prospects of breaking and thus, winning.
Med wins 62% of his service points in the period, to compare with Sinner’s barely over even 53% in first part

Cutting things finer than placing dividing line at end of sets -

After 6 games in second set, Med’s won 63% of points, serving 37% of them
Break points - Med 4/11 (5 games), Sinner 0
After that, Sinner wins 56% of points, serving 45% of them
Break points - Sinner 4/9 (7 games), Med 0/1

Putting them together yields virtual equality, but Sinner’s has better of substantial, larger ‘half’ of the match. Would have needed an against trend outcome to see Med finish what he started and pinch 1 of the last 3 sets. He’s holds about even in set 3, set 4 is where he has his sole break point (and at a critical time), but he’s largely outplayed there. A trend which continues in the finale

Medvedev’s match shaping
Generally, Med likes to return from as far back as possible and counter-punch from cozily behind baseline. Making lots of returns (i.e. not giving up freebies) and staying secure off the ground (i.e. not making errors, so its left for this opponent to do so) are how he goes about business of winning points

Not here, especially at the start

He returns from normal or early position. 2-3 paces behind service line to return first serves, further forward against seconds (occasionally, right on the baseline). And he continues to take ball early in ensuing rally, without losing any of his typical flat strikes (as in, low net clearance)

Potential downside for the shift in style is lower return rate and higher blink rate in rallies. Potential upside being reducing Sinner’s time to start rally with comfortable power and to rhythmically continue with it. Per commentary, its out of the blue move and he’d played in his usual way in reaching the final. He’d lost his last 3 matches to Sinner within short span of time

Drastic change like this is liable to lead to complete failure, but Med executes well
Still makes a lot of returns, but takes time away from Sinner - check
Does make a few more errors from the back, but his flat shots in combo with taking balls early pressures Sinner, as ball skims through low. And he takes to attackingly going wide with his shots, too. Well measured stuff and he forces whole bunch of series early on
(He also serves up a storm early on, making 19/22 first serves in first set while serving powerfully)

A very different match up than Sinner with time on hand delivering power hits, Med reacting to them. Med’s aggressor. And that’s the game that overwhelms Sinner for 2 sets
Splendid even by your stds.

but not sure i get

Would have needed an against trend outcome to see Med finish
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
but not sure i get ("Would have needed an against trend outcome to see Med finish")

"Trend" referes to how the match is going at the time
Basically, Sinner's playing better and getting better of match at those stages, so Med winning any of the last 3 sets would have to despite that going on (as opposed to Med getting better of things, in which case it'd be normal for him to win)

Examples of winning against trend would be '19 Wimbledon final. On the '00 Paris, Safin-Philippoussis thread, I gave a list of matches where winner of match trails first serve in, first serve won, second serve won - ultimate winning against trend showings

Statistically, looking at trends for a set can simply be done by looking at average lenght of service hold (assuming set is on serve, if it isn't, trend becomes secondary to that of course)
Non-statistically, just who seems to be leading action (hitting harder, deeper), and who reacting

Remaining 3 sets (hereafter referred to as ‘second part’)…
Sinner wins 56.1% of points, serving 48.9% of them
Break points - Sinner 3/6 (5 games), Med 0/1
This is summary of the trend of last 3 sets

Med's not out of it, but would probably need some luck or a bolt from the blue to take any of the sets

Third set is pretty much even, but Sinner leading action more. Would expect Sinner to win, but that's not clear cut
Fourth set more clearl Sinner having better of things (leading action + holding considerably more easily), but that's when Med ekes out his only break point at 3-3 (Next 3 points are ace, third ball FH inside-out winner and another ace)
Fifth set is not so statistically, but Med's clearly more tired and Sinner more in control of action
 
Top