Daniil Medvedev beat the best player in the world at Wimbledon. Then he had to beat another

WIMBLEDON — More than two years have passed since a man other than Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz or Jannik Sinner won a Grand Slam title. Of the last eight, four have gone to Djokovic, three to Alcaraz, and one to Sinner.

On Sunday that sequence will extend to nine, when Alcaraz and Djokovic contest the Wimbledon final for the second year running. The “Big Three” of Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have won 66 Grand Slam titles between them, and these three — at least two of them — are not there yet. But they are beginning to acquire one of the era-defining trio’s defining characteristics. To win a Grand Slam title, beating one of them likely won’t be enough; it will take beating two. If one of the three best players on the planet doesn’t get you, another one most likely will.

At the moment, there is one guy in particular who keeps getting got.

Daniil Medvedev is currently ranked No 5 in the world, behind Alexander Zverev, but over the period in which Djokovic, Alcaraz and Sinner have won the last eight slams, he has been the one to come the closest to breaking up the oligopoly. During that period, Medvedev has reached two finals and two semifinals, and crucially, he’s beaten two of those three players along the way. But both times he’s done that, he’s then run into one of the others — and they’ve been too strong.

Back in September, Medvedev beat Alcaraz in four sets in the US Open semifinals, but lying in wait for him was Djokovic, who won the final in three. At Wimbledon this week, Medvedev beat an ailing Sinner, the world No 1, on Tuesday in the quarterfinals. On Friday, he had to face Alcaraz, and the defending champion took him out. Medvedev didn’t do a lot wrong, but was beaten in four sets.

It’s the same logic as the Big Three era: you might get one of these guys, but even if you do, one of the others will get you anyway. And in the last three Wimbledons, including this one, Medvedev’s win over Sinner on Tuesday was the sole time that any of the three have lost to anyone but each other.

Alcaraz, Sinner, and Djokovic’s strength is such that they are capable of turning seemingly open draws into closed ones. Alcaraz and Sinner were injured going into the French Open in May, and Djokovic was out of form. It was a moment for someone to step into the limelight — or so it seemed.

Alcaraz won the tournament, beating Sinner in the semifinals; Djokovic won one five-set match after 3am and another with a torn meniscus, before having to withdraw at the quarterfinal stage.

Coming into Wimbledon, Djokovic looked barely ready to play, and Alcaraz looked uncertain on the grass at Queen’s. Both men are in the final.

GO DEEPER

Daniil Medvedev is the fly-swatting enigma of men’s tennis – and he’s taking a moment

When Medvedev won his sole Grand Slam by beating Djokovic at the US Open three years ago, the Serbian was hunting alone. Nadal was out injured, and Alcaraz and Sinner were yet to fully emerge. Beating Djokovic was a phenomenal achievement, but beating two of the three, let alone three of the three, is a whole other level.

That’s why, as quickly as things can change, it’s hard to see anyone else winning a major anytime soon. Zverev lost to Medvedev in the Australian Open semifinals after beating Alcaraz in the quarters. When Zverev beat Sinner in the fourth round of last year’s US Open, Alcaraz swept him away in straight sets. Not a single player has beaten two of Djokovic, Alcaraz and Sinner at a major — including themselves.

Medvedev’s only Grand Slam title to date came with a three-set defeat of Novak Djokovic in New York (Sarah Stier/Getty Images)

Getting back to No 4 in the world would help the Russian, cancelling the possibility of having to beat Sinner, Alcaraz and Djokovic to win a title. As of Monday, Medvedev will trail the No 4 Zverev in the rankings by about 500 points.

All of this leaves him in a tricky but familiar spot, one that countless men’s players have experienced over the last 20 years: Being unbelievably good, but not quite good enough. Look at the highlights of his year so far: Australian Open final (beaten by Sinner), Indian Wells final (beaten by Alcaraz), Miami Open semifinal (beaten by Sinner), Wimbledon semifinal (beaten by Alcaraz).

Still, he is determined to stay positive. When asked on Tuesday about the challenge of beating Sinner, only to then take on Alcaraz, he said:

“It’s never easy when you have such an electric match. But I have done it many times… It should not be a problem.

“For me (against Sinner), it was important to just show I’m always going to be there. I’m always going to fight, I’m always going to try to make your life difficult. Maybe you’re going to win more; maybe I’m going to win more. I don’t know, but I’m going to fight.

“Even if Jannik won, the goal was to show him that every time I’m going to be there to fight and to win. I managed to do it. Doesn’t mean that next time is going to be the same.”

On Friday, after losing to Alcaraz, he added: “I’m going to try to raise my level next time I play Carlos, try to do something new, something better.” He did — Alcaraz beat him in three sets at this stage of Wimbledon last year, which the Russian described as being “crushed.”

Alcaraz took control after Medvedev won the first set of their second consecutive Wimbledon semifinal (Andrej Isakovic/AFP via Getty Images)

The position Medvedev finds himself is reminiscent of Andy Murray’s dilemma around the turn of the last decade. No matter what he did, one of Federer or Nadal would do it better.

When Murray was chasing a first Grand Slam title, he beat Nadal in the 2008 US Open semifinal, before beating him again in the 2010 Australian Open quarterfinal. On both occasions, Federer was waiting to polish him off in the final. Murray was beaten by Nadal at Wimbledon three out of four years between 2008 and 2011, and in 2013 he beat Federer in the Australian Open semis before losing to Djokovic in the final.

GO DEEPER

‘Take your time, you d*ck’: 15 years of defending and deserving Andy Murray

This window saw some of the Big Three’s most effective pack hunting, when at Wimbledon in 2010, Tomas Berdych beat Federer in the quarters and Djokovic in the semis. Nadal was waiting in the final, and the Spaniard won — obviously — in straight sets. Only once did someone beat all three at the same tournament — David Nalbandian at the 2007 Madrid Open — and it never happened at a major.

David Nalbandian beat Nadal, Djokovic, and then Federer to win the 2007 Madrid Masters — then a hard-court tournament (Jasper Juinen/Getty Images)

Dominic Thiem was another to suffer badly at the hands of the Big Three pack. He beat Djokovic en route to the French Open semi-final in 2017 and the final in 2019, and both times fell at the hands of the Nadal, the 14-time champion and ultimate final boss. When Thiem got past Nadal at the 2020 Australian Open, 10-time Melbourne champion Djokovic was waiting to beat him over five sets in the final.

Where Medvedev, or indeed any of the best of the rest go from here is tough to say. Medvedev’s approach of first and foremost trying to ensure that every match against Djokovic, Alcaraz, or Sinner is a fight is definitely the right one, and that was pretty much Murray’s approach too, which ultimately took him to three majors in the Big Three era. Winning a major also brings the comfort of ranking points and a higher seeding, which makes it less likely that beating two of the three will be necessary to win a title. As Medvedev found out in New York in 2021, even against the three best players in the world, one match can still go either way.

He also found that out in January, when he lost to Sinner from two sets up in the Australian Open final.

On Friday at Wimbledon, he found it out again.

(Top photo: Andrej Isakovic/AFP via Getty Images)