Breaking News

Nadal v Medvedev — the facts and figures

Facts and figures from Sunday’s US Open final between Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev, which the Spaniard won 7-5, 6-3, 5-7, 4-6, 6-2:

Nadal, Medvedev
Rafael Nadal of Spain (R) holds the trophy after his win over Daniil Medvedev of Russia (L) during the men’s Singles Finals match at the 2019 US Open at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York on September 8, 2019. – Rafael Nadal captured his 19th career Grand Slam title in thrilling fashion on Sunday by winning the US Open final, outlasting Russia’s Daniil Medvedev 7-5, 6-3, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4 to seize his fourth crown in New York. / AFP

4 hours, 50 minutes

— duration of the final, falling four minutes short of the longest US Open championship match on record. Andy Murray’s five-set win over Novak Djokovic in 2012 took four hours and 54 minutes. Mats Wilander also defeated Ivan Lendl in a match of identical length in the 1988 final


— Rafael’s age. He became the second oldest US Open champion in the modern era since 35-year-old Ken Rosewall in 1970


— number of US Open titles now won by Nadal

READ ALSO: Murray heads back to Challenger Tour for first time in 14 years


— number of Grand Slams now won by Nadal


— number of points won by Nadal/Medvedev in the final


— break points converted by Nadal


— break points converted by Medvedev


— aces hit by Nadal/Medvedev


— winners hit by Nadal/Medvedev


— unforced errors by Nadal/Medvedev


— success rate of male players born in the 1990s in Grand Slam finals. Milos Raonic finished runner-up at Wimbledon in 2016 while Dominic Thiem lost the last two French Open finals to the Spaniard.


— number of career five-set wins for Medvedev in five attempts


— number of career titles for Nadal, of which 21 have come on hard courts


All rights reserved. This material and any other digital content on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from VANGUARD NEWS.


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.