Jannik Sinner’s win over Novak Djokovic is newsworthy for many different reasons. We won’t outline all of those reasons here, but one undeniable and conspicuous part of this much larger story is that Djokovic lost a day match in the Australian Open semifinals.
Keep this in mind: The Australian Open men’s final was a day match through 2004. It moved to a night final in 2005. The schedule on the final weekend of the tournament was not always the same. In the 21st century, though, night tennis had become more central to the tournament’s second weekend. The Australian Open schedule, for nearly two decades (if not more), put one men’s semifinal on Thursday night and the other on Friday night. Only recently did the tournament adjust and put both semifinals on Friday, with the first semifinal being a day match and the second one a night match.
Fans of Rafael Nadal — a player who is famously strong and successful in sunny, outdoor conditions — are making note of the fact that as soon as Djokovic was made to play a day match in the Australian Open semifinals, he lost. It’s his first-ever loss in an Australian Open semifinal or final. Coincidence? It’s the question a lot of people are asking.
It certainly brings back the great, raging Twitter debates and fan wars of the Big 3 era.
Remember how much of an uproar there was about Roger Federer finishing his 2012 Wimbledon final versus Andy Murray under a roof?
Remember how much outrage poured forth when Novak Djokovic was allowed to finish his 2018 Wimbledon semifinal against Rafael Nadal indoors, even though the weather was dry?
Remember how much Nadal fans worried about the 2020 Roland Garros final against Djokovic under the new roof in Paris?
Remember how disappointed Nadal fans were that the 2021 Roland Garros semifinal between Nadal and Djokovic was not the day match on Friday?
Remember how mad people got when Roger Federer played Marin Cilic under a roof in the 2018 Australian Open final?
Fans know when and where their favorite players had better odds, given the circumstances and playing conditions, but one of the lingering points of fascination about the Big 3 era is how bent out of joint fans often got when a roof was put on or a match was scheduled for the day (or night). Yes, conditions certainly helped a player, but fans often acted as though it was the end of the world if their player played under conditions more advantageous to the other player.
To bring the discussion back to Djokovic and his daytime loss to Sinner, Nadal fans are going to make a point about how the Australian Open’s nighttime semifinal schedule had a lot to do with Djokovic making this major his most successful of the four. Is there some truth to that? Yes. Put Djokovic in more daytime 5-setters against elite opponents, and his overall win-loss record over a 10-year period almost certainly would suffer.
However: Is it enough to significantly change how we view Djokovic and the Big 3? It shouldn’t be. You can worship the Sun God if you’re a Nadal fan, but you don’t get to completely reshape the GOAT debate.
You can modify it slightly on the edges, but not change the larger, fundamental narrative.
Here’s the thing about the GOAT debate: If your player is so completely dependent on conditions to win, he must not be the GOAT after all. Is it a stroke of bad luck that Nadal didn’t get to play Djokovic in a daytime Australian Open semifinal or final? Sure. The 2012 final might have ended differently. However, Nadal and Djokovic did not meet a lot of times in Melbourne to begin with. Nadal’s rotten injury luck exists independent of the Djokovic daytime match factor.
On a broader level, changes in tennis scheduling and tournament structures have been a continuous feature of the sport over time. In 1974, three majors were played on grass. From 1975 through 1977, two majors were played on clay. From 1975 through 1987, two majors were played on grass. In the 21st century, the majors built roofs on their central courts, allowing for indoor tennis during inclement weather.
Is Roger Federer unlucky that tennis doesn’t have three grass majors the way it did in 1974? Is Nadal unlucky that tennis doesn’t have two majors on clay the way it did for that brief period in the mid-1970s? Is Djokovic lucky he got to avoid daytime semifinals and finals in Australia as long as he did? We all know the answers to those questions … but none of that should place an asterisk on achievements or failures, as though a change would have somehow guaranteed a different outcome.
Player A had to beat Player B on a given day no matter what the peripheral details were. Completely relitigating and reshaping one’s view of tennis history and its player legacies based on whether a roof was on or off is quite an overreaction.
Rafael Nadal is quite probably the best “hot sun” player in the history of men’s tennis, but matches are sometimes played at night and indoors or even on grass. Nadal checks a lot of boxes in the GOAT debate, but Djokovic checked more. Whether luck plays a part in that or not, the results are what they are. The trophy cases are what they are.
Djokovic’s multiple near Grand Slams, his Masters 1000 box set, his major title count, his major semifinal and final counts, and other instances of his unmatched consistency still make him number one. We can give Nadal the Sun God championship, but not the GOAT crown. Federer is the greatest grass-court player in men’s tennis history, but he doesn’t own the GOAT distinction, either.
Worship the Sun God by all means, just not more than necessary.
Tennis with an Accent 