The most controversial Wimbledon in recent memory has come to an end. And it's not because of what happened on the court. Three or four factors have made this edition the most unorthodox one ever seen in the temple of conservatism.
WATCH: Djokovic won't forget Kyrgios: "He was one of the few who supported me in Australia."
The first factor was the decision of the All England Club to exclude Russian and Belarusian tennis players due to the invasion of Ukraine. The geopolitical situation has deprived us of appreciating an impressive generation from one of the most powerful nations in tennis. The censorship is not symbolic, as it affects two "top ten" players like Medvedev and Rublev, as well as figures like Kachanov and Karatsev. The damage is also significant in the women's competition: Belarusian Aryna Sabalenka is ranked fourth in the world and her compatriot Victoria Azarenka has been number 1 and has won the Australian Open twice. They are joined by the Russians Pavlyuchenka and Kasatkina.
The second factor is a consequence of the first one: the Association of Tennis Professionals and its female counterpart, the WTA, have resented the British club's decision to the point of not awarding ranking points for this tournament, so the results of Wimbledon will not be counted in the annual ranking this time.
The third condition has been, once again, the COVID-19 pandemic: Matteo Berrettini, Roberto Bautista Agut, and Marin Cilic had to withdraw from the tournament due to positive tests, further weakening the draw (and, why not say it, raising suspicions again about Novak Djokovic's decision not to get vaccinated).
The fourth and final point to consider is Rafael Nadal's withdrawal due to injury, which deprived us of what would have been an exciting semifinal against Nick Kyrgios.
Now we can finally talk about tennis.
For a week and a half, the Spanish and Serbian players had a relatively easy path due to the absences. Then, what has been happening for the past decade occurred once again: the giants thwarted the generational change. Nadal defeated Taylor Fritz in the quarterfinals; Nole defeated Cameron Norrie in the semifinals. Both are good players: they inhabit a world of neat technique and athletic prowess. But it's not enough. Even the injured versions of Nadal and Djokovic are superior to diligent students without genius. Norrie's two-handed backhand is clean and his mobility is optimal, but his forehand doesn't do any damage and his serve is lacking. Fritz has a lethal serve, but his backhand is short and his baseline game is unsustainable at this level. To defeat a Djokovic, who plays with the handbrake on, or even an injured Nadal, something more is needed: magic, rebelliousness, genius. Kyrgios is one of the few twenty-somethings who has that extra something.
The Australian's tennis history is composed of outbursts and ups and downs. He is so unruly to the point of being rude; he has contrasted his explosive talent with disdain and nonchalance. He renounces the idea that tennis should be enjoyed (it's a job), he has been disrespectful to his opponents, he fights with the crowd, he is the one who uses underarm serves the most, and he engages in psychological battles to unsettle his rivals (Tsitsipas was the latest victim of these dubious tactics). In a sport that prides itself on its integrity, Kyrgios has been happy as the black sheep. No player has been fined as much as he has, but tennis also needs anti-heroes, especially if they have one foot in drama and provocation.
Despite his inconsistency (his best ranking position has been 13th in the world), Kyrgios is one of the few players who has a positive record against Djokovic, whom he will face in the final. His first serve is brutal; the second easily reaches 200 km/h. He has great touch in his hand and a forehand capable of both speed and angle. The doubts for him will be whether he can turn his spontaneity into consistency. If his antics can disrupt a player with 20 Grand Slam titles to his name. If his aggressiveness turns into strength. Kyrgios has a lot at stake in this first major final: he is about to make the leap that his talent demands or, failing that, continue to be the mere entertainer that his detractors claim he is.
Today we will find out who is right.