At 6:40 Beijing time this morning, the ATP year-end finals ended the second semi-final, Djokovic fought hard in three sets took 2 hours and 28 minutes, and lost to Zverev 6-7 (4)/6-4/3-6, stopping the year-end finals finals for two consecutive years.
With this victory, Zverev reached the final of the tournament for the second time, and he will compete with Medvedev for the title tomorrow at 00:00 Beijing time. Previously, Zverev won the tournament in 2018, while Medvedev was the winner of last year's year-end finals.
Looking at the whole game, I think that as predicted before the game, the win or loss of the game mainly depends on the respective performances of both sides. More precisely, it mainly depends on Zverev's performance, which is mainly reflected in two aspects: one is Zverev's serve performance, and the other is his psychological state. As long as Zverev maintains a good serve, as long as he maintains psychological stability, does not collapse at key moments and does not make stupid mistakes, he can create very big trouble for Djokovic.
There is no doubt that Zverev did the above two points well in this game, daring to fight for two shots at key moments and only 1 double error in the whole game, whereas in the past his double error was often double digits, and often delivered fatal double errors on key points.
The second serve soared above 200 km/h to end the race with a goodbye Ace, which showed that Zverev had been able to grasp the scale between blind adventure and bold attack, and he was no longer the Zverev who often made stupid mistakes, dropped chains at key moments, and self-doubted and collapsed.
Opponents are more mature and stable than before, and physically superior, Djokovic's tactical goal is to avoid frequent bottom-line confrontation with opponents, he needs to play more actively, needs to shorten the round, needs to score more concisely and efficiently.
As a result, strengthening the serve became Djokovic's first tactic. Facing Zverev this time, Djokovic swam out 15 Ace balls, one more than his opponent, and his one-shot scoring rate reached 87%, 9 percentage points higher than his opponent. In terms of second-serve scoring rate, Djokovic is as low as 41%, while Zverev is as high as 63%, 22 percentage points higher than Djokovic. From this backwards, if Djokovic does not strengthen the first shot, does not rely on the first shot to establish an advantage, simply competing for two shots will basically not win the game.
In addition to stepping up his serve, Djokovic also frequently surfs the Internet. With a boosted serve and an active internet connection, djokovic got a good return at the recent Paris Masters. In this match against Zverev, Djokovic scored 16 points in total on the internet 19 times, scoring 84% in front of the net, while Djokovic's previous advantage was mainly in the bottom line, and he relied on the bottom line of the stalemate, the bottom line defensive counterattack and the bottom line attack to win more points.
Since this year's Australian Open, Djokovic and Zverev have played each other 4 times, with each side winning 2. Prior to this match, Zverev won 1-6, 6-3, 6-1 at the Tokyo Olympics, while Djokovic won at the Australian Open and US Open.
Attentive golfers will find that Djokovic wins three-win games in five sets, while Zverev wins two-win games in three sets. Let's imagine that the format of the year-end finals is also changed to a best-of-five format, so will Djokovic's probability of winning increase?
In fact, the year-end finals, which were born out of the Masters Cup, were a five-set best-of-three format until 2006, when they were changed to the current best-of-three format.
An important reason for shortening the format is that players have been physically and mentally exhausted by the end of the year after a year of playing. The first stage of the year-end finals was a group play, which required all players to play 3 games, while the previous tour was a knockout tournament, and if they lost, they would be eliminated. In the first stage of the year-end finals, playing three consecutive games greatly increased the risk of injury, and this year, Two players, Beretini and Tsitsipas, retired due to injury, and Sina and Nori were able to have a chance to come off the bench.
Fatigue and injuries are not only caused by group round robins, it is also related to the schedule. The Grand Slam schedule of five sets and three wins is to play one day off, which is very important for the physical recovery of the players, while the year-end finals are basically one game a day, and it is a competition between excellent players, the intensity is tight, which makes it difficult for the players to fully recover physically.
So, who is more in the current best-of-three set system?
It is generally believed that young players with relatively low rankings and less experience have an advantage. In the face of giants, young players often hold the psychology of impact, with the momentum of newborn calves who are not afraid of tigers to launch challenges. If they can stay in good shape at the start of the game, they will most likely have the advantage in the first two sets to win 2-0 or 2-1.
However, in the best-of-five game, the two sides will have more state fluctuations, how to adjust the psychological state and tactics, how to reasonably distribute physical fitness, it is more important, and the giants have a lot of experience in this area, which can help them very well. This year's French Open final, Tsitsipas won by the more experienced and mentally stable Djokovic after taking two sets first, as evidenced by this.
That said, if it weren't for injuries or lack of physical fitness, it would be difficult for young players to psychologically defeat the giants. Conversely, once they are at a disadvantage in confrontation, it is often difficult for young players to adjust their mental state, and they are more likely to be defeated.
In the past five years, the ATP year-end finals have produced five different champions, all of whom are young players. In grand slam matches, the Big Three have long dominated, with only Thiem and Medvedev winning Grand Slams after the 90s.
In summary, without changing the schedule, it is difficult to change the year-end finals to a five-set best-of-three system, and the current three-set best-of-three system is undoubtedly very beneficial for young players. For the upcoming finals, who are you more optimistic about winning the second year-end finals? (Source: Tennis House Author: Yun Cirrus Yunshu)
Learn more