The Importance of Competition Load

Daniil Medvedev cemented his status as the standout player of his generation, reaching back-to-back Grand Slam finals and climbing to the top of the ATP rankings. While the Russian succeeded at the US Open 2021, beating Novak Djokovic in the final to win his first major title, he couldn’t do the same against Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open 2022.
The world No. 2 came very close, stretching Nadal to five sets, but fell victim to a miraculous comeback from the Mallorcan. Interestingly, the latter was where he was the favorite to win the title, while Djokovic was the clear favorite at Flushing Meadows. So why has Daniil Medvedev’s fortunes changed so dramatically?
Many blamed the 26-year-old’s mental state for the reason for the results, believing the pressure of being the favorite got to him. Others gave the world No. 3 all the credit, citing his knack for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
But a recent analysis of a YouTube channel, Baseline Tennis, revealed that a much simpler metric may be at play: competition load. Briefly, competition load is defined as the cumulative time spent by a player on the field.
According to statistics collected from Men’s Slam matches between 2011 and 2021, the average number of hours on the pitch for a player to reach the quarter-finals (after four matches) is between 7.5 and 10 hours. To reach the semi-finals, a player will need to play between 10 and 12.5 hours on average. Likewise, it usually takes 12.5 to 15 hours for a player to qualify for the finals.
Major tournament records show that players who spend longer than average on the pitch are less likely to win than players who finish their matches faster, with a 5.6% drop in the odds of winning for each additional hour.
In New York, the last three opponents of Daniil Medvedev were: Botic van de Zandschlup, Felix Auger-Aliassime and Djokovic. Going into their game, van de Zandschlup had already played 17.53 hours, the most of any player and five hours more than average.
Auger-Aliassime arrived in the semi-finals after having spent 13.53 hours on the pitch, or more than 86% of the players analyzed. For the final, the Serb had already played 17.43 hours to get there, which is 93% more than the major finalists of the previous 43 tournaments.
Indeed, the world No. 1 won only one match in straight sets in the tournament (second round against Tallon Griekspoor) and had to defend after one set in four games.
On the other hand, Djokovic’s last three opponents were: Matteo Berrettini, Alexander Zverev and Daniil Medvedev. Berrettini entered the quarter-final clash having played 12.03 hours on the pitch (more than 94% of quarter-finalists over the past decade).
Zverev, however, spent just 9.38 hours to reach the semi-finals (more than just 18% of all semi-finalists in the past decade) and stretched the 20-time Grand Slam champion to five. sets.
Meanwhile, Daniil Medvedev entered the final with just 11.85 hours under his belt, more than just 16% of those who have reached a Slam final since 2011 and far more rested than his opponent. This meant that in the second and most important week of the tournament, the Russian benefited immensely from playing against players far more exhausted than himself.
Daniil Medvedev wasn’t so lucky at the Australian Open and had a similar competitive load to Rafael Nadal
At the 2022 Australian Open, however, Daniil Medvedev had no such advantage. While Rafael Nadal entered the final after spending 17 hours and four minutes on the pitch, Medvedev had to play 17 hours and 29 minutes to get there.
This meant that neither had a clear competitive load advantage. Moreover, it also explains to a lesser extent why the 21-time Grand Slam champion could still hold his own in the five-set marathon.
While a small swing percentage may not seem like much, it becomes extremely valuable at the elite level where there is only a fine line separating winners and losers. With players evenly matched in skill more often than not, random factors such as opponents’ exhaustion levels wield a much greater influence than expected.