Delicious nastiness of the Australian Open men’s final

Articulate and likeable off the court, Daniil Medvedev can turn nasty when he plays

A delicious nastiness is simmering beneath the men’s Australian Open final after a women’s decider that was so swift and predictable that patrons should have asked for their money back. There was a general air of, is that it? Another example of why women’s finals should be best of five sets.

Daniil Medvedev can be a cranky bugger when things aren’t going his way. They’re unlikely to all go his way on Sunday night against Novak Djokovic. He’s an articulate and likeable bloke off the court, but he plays with a sneer. If the crowd gives him a hard time, he will give it right back, and then some. If Djokovic starts bunging on the injuries or time-wasting, Medvedev will return the favour, making his displeasure known. If he believes the umpire has stuffed up – previously he’s hit the chair with his racquet in a threatening little act. If Djokovic gets a rough ride from the bogan element of the Rod Laver Arena crowd, which was completely out of line during his match against Taylor Fritz, he will explode at them like he did then. Throw all that on top of Medvedev straining for his first major title, and Djokovic being desperate for his 18th, and both of them being willing to get down and dirty, and the cocktail is delicious.

Medvedev often returns serve with a top lip curled in a sneer. He isn’t above sledging or flat-out baking an opponent with terse comments during a match. In last year’s ATP Cup, Medvedev argued so vehemently with Diego Schwartzman during a changeover that umpire Mohamed Lahyani had to leave his chair to separate them.

When Medvedev received a conduct warning, he angrily and threateningly hit Lahyani’s chair twice with his racquet, which was serious enough to earn him a point penalty. Medvedev said later: “I didn’t have anything near me to hit other than the chair.”

Medvedev’s Russian comrade Andrey Rublev has detailed their “nuts” and “little bit crazy” behaviour in their junior matches. Medvedev was an argumentative and confrontational young player and there’s still that side to him.

He’s a fighter and sometimes his desperation to win gets the better of him. If a crowd is against him, he incites them further by wagging his index finger after winning a point, riling them up even more.

He quite often plays better when he’s being razzed. At the 2019 US Open against Feliciano Lopez, after a few fits of racquet-throwing and towel-tossing, he not so subtly put his middle finger up against his face. He was clearly flipping the bird at either the umpire, Lopez or all concerned. When it was shown on the big screen, the New York crowd went ballistic – but umpire Damian Dumusois was powerless to caution him because he had not seen it with his own eyes.

Medvedev kept stirring up the hate, feeding off it to win a tough match. In his on-court interview, he told the crowd their animosity had helped him win. He said: “I want all of you to know, when you sleep tonight, I won because of you.”

When Stefanos Tsitsipas showed signs of fatigue in their semi-final, Medvedev baited him by running straight past him at a change of ends, exaggerating his knee bend and hand movements like a 100m Olympic runner doing a warm up. It was clearly designed to rub his fitness in Tsitsipas’s face.

When Tsitsipas delayed one of Medvedev’s serves because he wasn’t ready, Medvedev sarcastically and rather theatrically delayed the point even longer by going and getting his towel.

An engaging and interesting character before and after matches, the gloves come off during matches.

Djokovic’s antics under duress need no repeating. If he starts dawdling and delaying or crying about injuries, Medvedev will retaliate one way or another. Delicious.

Djokovic copped a rowdy crowd against Fritz. It was so embarrassing that it was almost a relief when they were kicked out before the 11.59pm lockdown. Djokovic reacted with full-throated fervour to the horns during that match and if he’s cast as the villain again, he is likely to let his frustration build and build and until there’s some sort of outburst at his detractors.

Like Medvedev, he feeds off the haters, of which there’s a few. Both players will do whatever it takes to do to win. Gamesmanship is almost guaranteed.

On top of all this psychological byplay, the tennis is likely to be spectacular. We’ll get our money’s worth, compared to those paying up to $1000 or similar for the women’s final. They were short-changed. Naomi Osaka took one hour and 17 minutes to beat Jennifer Brady but it was all over as a contest after about 40 minutes; one half of an NRL game.

There was a lot of muted applause as the match flew by. Osaka led 6-4 4-0 inside an hour when one TV commentator said: “Expect the crowd to come with her (Brady). They want to see more tennis.”

You’re not wrong! Straight after the match, which was all a bit underwhelming as a spectacle, a commentator said the match was “maybe not quite as long as we would have liked.”

I get why women’s matches during the tournament are best-of-three sets. To go the distance would ruin the schedule. But in the final, when it’s the only match, they should play best of five, not the least because they’re getting equal prize money. Under-12s play best of three. So do over-70s. There’s little physical strain. In the big one, they should play a big one. The players might appreciate it. They could show what they’ve really got as athletes.