Medvedev: "Winning a Grand Slam is a greater achievement than being number 1"

Daniil Medvedev had to roll up his sleeves in his second-round match at Wimbledon 2026 to overcome Dani Merida in four sets. Furthermore, he was asked in the press conference whether being number 1 or winning a Grand Slam is more important to him, and the Russian tennis player stated that achieving a major title is a greater accomplishment.

Medvedev knows what he's talking about since he has achieved both. The Russian player was the US Open champion in 2021 and also held the ATP ranking's top spot for several weeks, but he believes that winning a Grand Slam is a bigger challenge. According to him, reaching number 1 comes with consistency and good results, so he thinks that everything is connected, and he also believes that he can achieve both accomplishments again if he plays as he knows.

Match against Merida

Tough match. I think he played very well. It's great to win these kinds of matches because sometimes players go all out, and I think he played quite well, so beating him was important. Also, during the match, I felt that I was improving. I found solutions, better shots. I am very happy and looking forward to seeing what happens next.

Number 1 or winning a Grand Slam?

I think winning a Grand Slam is a greater achievement. Once you win a Grand Slam in a year, you already consider yourself the world number 1. Of course, there are three other Grand Slams. If someone else wins one, maybe they will become the number 1. But 2000 points are a lot, and probably if you win a Grand Slam, you will also perform well in other tournaments. That's what happened to me, for example.
The year I won the US Open, I stayed as number 1, keeping those points because I think I reached number 1, not exactly after the Australian Open, but very close. And then, more or less, I remained as number 1 until the US Open.

Then I lost in the fourth round to Kyrgios, lost the points, and then I stopped being the world number 1. For me, yes, the ranking is secondary, but it shows how well you have been playing over the last 52 weeks, and it is a great achievement if you manage to play better than all the other players in the world during those last 52 weeks.

Image

Medvedev wades into the controversy with the Masters 1000 two weeks

Yes, I have always said the same. Perhaps I am one of the few players who like long Masters 1000 tournaments, but I think they should have even more importance so that people give them a higher priority if they become so long. The thing is, you win two 500 tournaments, but if you look at the draw, it's not the most important, it's not a Masters 1000. If you win two like that, you get the same points as if you were to win, for example, Indian Wells, and that's not fair, in my opinion.

Maybe there is room for improvement, where the Masters 1000 are truly significant tournaments, where you give it your all, and then, if you play well, you don't have to play other tournaments. If you don't play well, you have time to play others. I don't know if there is an exact correlation with injuries, but I also understand it might be too long and then become too congested. Right now, I am in an intermediate point. I used to support them a lot, and now I am in an intermediate point.

When did you change your mind?

It has been quite some time since it started this way, and last year, I did not play very well in Toronto, Cincinnati. What's important to me, at least, is that even when you lose early, you can play other tournaments. I remember when I was very young, my coaches used to tell me, 'You lost in the first round, let's play more tournaments.' I would think, 'Even if I lost in the first round, it was preparation for the tournament, preparation for the first match.'

I think it should be something like: you start a year and think, 'My plan is to play four Grand Slams, all Masters 1000, and then see what tournaments I add here and there.' Instead, now, when you pursue the spot in Turin, for example, like I did at the end of last year, I didn't get it, but I played seven or eight tournaments in eight weeks because 250 points can be important, and I think the Masters 1000 should have more relevance.

Greater chance to win a Grand Slam, as Zverev did, with Alcaraz's absence

In general, as in any other sport, I don't think seeing someone win—at least in my opinion—makes you believe more in yourself because I know that when I play my best tennis, as I did this year, even in a couple of tournaments, I can reach a Grand Slam final or win it, and that's what matters. Sasha winning didn't change my conviction, but I am glad that another player from our generation—actually, Dominic, although he is not exactly from this generation, also won one—can do it.

Maybe we can aim for more. The absence of Carlos definitely makes a big difference. Jannik is still there. He is winning many matches. If something external hadn't affected him, like at Roland Garros... Yes, that's sports. It's funny. I can only speak for myself. I believe in myself. But I am quite sure that other players of my generation also believe in themselves and can win a Grand Slam, undoubtedly.

Medvedev confident in regaining the number 1 spot

It is possible for almost everyone. You just need to play very well, be very consistent, etc. Me, the same. I know that if I manage to do things well and perhaps improve in some areas, like playing as I did in Rome and Roland Garros and not losing in the first round, I can earn more points because at one point, I believe I was second in the rankings, not now. I don't know how far Sasha is from Jannik. I think at one point, he was quite far, but he probably slowed down after Roland Garros.

So it is possible for everyone. You just need to be very consistent, very strong, and win many matches. If you ask me right now, I am far from these guys in points, but at the same time, this is sports, and everything is possible. For me, the motivation is to try to play the best I can, maybe win here, and that's how you get 2000 points. Then, the ranking is always secondary because it comes with good results.

Changes in tennis

To be honest, I prefer to leave this to more competent people. So far, I'm not in a position to say what's best for the growth of tennis as a sport, but I do believe in the competence of the people involved in this (ATP, Grand Slams). Even if we have small disagreements with the Grand Slams, that's how we try to move forward. This attracts attention to tennis and the Grand Slams. I try to give my best on the court. Sometimes I entertain people, sometimes not, and sometimes not. Probably, some know me from TikTok or whatever. I just try to do my job, and I believe that those working in tennis also give their best. I think tennis remains a very important sport, and honestly, I trust that it will continue to grow. We just have to trust the people around it.

Open to changes?

Yes, I am open to any change. If it is a change like, for example, putting a camera in the locker room, I will oppose. But something else, why not? Some innovations, I am totally in favor. If there's something I don't like, I will talk to the officials and say, 'Look, personally, I don't know about other players, but I don't like it, and maybe there are a hundred players who also don't like it, so we will look for a different innovation.' And I think tennis is trying.

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, Medvedev: "Ganar un Grand Slam es un mayor logro que ser número 1"