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
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: