No, Novak Djokovic's exit doesn't mean the Australian Open 2022 men's champion will have an asterisk next to his name

The Australian Open will finally have a new men's champion, after four long years.

The Federal Court of Australia confirmed on Sunday that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's decision to cancel Novak Djokovic's visa wasn't unlawful. The Serb was forced to leave the country shortly thereafter, meaning he won't be able to play the Melbourne Slam this year.

The move has understandably received bitter backlash from Djokovic fans, who believe the decision of the Australian government wasn't made in good faith. Many have even questioned the legitimacy of this year's Australian Open, as it won't feature its defending champion despite him being fit and available.

A widespread opinion on social media right now is that whoever wins the Australian Open in 2022 would have an asterisk next to their name. That stems from the belief that the conditions surrounding the eventual champion's win would be less than fair.

But if we're being completely honest, this is a ludicrous claim - and for more reasons than one.

For starters, everything that has happened - from the time Djokovic announced that he had received a health exemption to his court hearing at the Federal Court 12 days later - can be attributed largely to the Serb's own actions.

The entire saga could have been avoided had Djokovic taken the vaccine, like 98% of the top 100 players currently at Melbourne Park have. It might also have been avoided if the World No. 1 had refrained from voicing his misgivings against vaccine mandates.

Djokovic's vaccine hesitancy has given fuel to anti-vaxxers all over the world. It has also played right into the hands of politicians who wouldn't think twice before using a high-profile athlete as a pawn in their sneaky games.

But there's an even bigger reason why there shouldn't be any asterisks, and one that is also far simpler: success in tennis has never, and will never, be dictated by the presence or absence of one player.

The beauty of the sport lies in the fact that you can only be as good as your opponents on any given day. Every single tennis tournament works on the same inherent principle of knockouts, and the 2022 Australian Open will be no different.

The winner of the Australian Open will be the player who wins seven matches on the trot - no more, no less

Roger Federer with the 2017 Australian Open trophy

Every Major tournament demands that the eventual winner win seven consecutive matches across a two-week period. It doesn't matter who the opponents are or what their rankings are; the requirement remains the same.

When Emma Raducanu won the 2021 US Open, she didn't face a single top 10 player on her path. But when Roger Federer won the 2017 Australian Open, he had to face four players ranked within the top 10.

For the sport of tennis, both Raducanu and Federer are winners. Both have their name up on the honors board, and guess what? Neither has an asterisk next to their name.

History books don't consider one Slam winner as better than another, or one as a lucky accident and another as a deserving champion. And that is the fairest possible way to look at the matter.

Should the 2021 US Open title have been given to Leylah Fernandez because she beat three top 5 players on her way to the final? No, because that is not how the game works. Raducanu won because the others lost at some point.

The 2022 Australian Open is much the same. The man who lifts the Norman Brookes Challenge Cup on 31 January will be the man who has survived seven consecutive matches. Novak Djokovic's presence or absence in the draw does not, and should not, factor into the decision at all.

Think about it like this: Would the Serb's fans have not counted the 2021 US Open as a win had he beaten Daniil Medvedev in the final? After all, both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - fellow members of the 20-Slam club, were absent at Flushing Meadows.

Would Djokovic's victory have been less sweet then?

In fact, when the 34-year-old won his 20th Grand Slam at Wimbledon last year, Nadal was again not present. Federer, meanwhile, was absent during Djokovic's 18th Major title run (the 2021 Australian Open).

Do none of those wins count now?

It is disrespectful to suggest the Australian Open winner is undeserving when there are factors outside his control

Andy Murray came within one match of winning the Australian Open five times, but that is part of the game

To say the winner of the Australian Open deserves an asterisk next to his name is, plain and simple, disrespectful to the game. It is also rude to question the achievement of a person who did nothing but beat the players that were put in front of him.

If he was born in any other era, Andy Murray would have likely been considered one of the greatest tennis players in the history of the sport. But because he was unlucky enough to inhabit the same time period as the Big 3, he is very likely to retire with only three Grand Slams next to his name.

Has the former World No. 1 ever complained about that? Not for a minute. That's because Murray understands what tennis is. He understands that the winner in tennis is not chosen on the basis of consistency over a long period. It is, instead, decided by a format that rewards your sheer presence.

Years from now, there might come an Australian Open where there are no past Grand Slam champions in the draw. Even then, the winner will not have an asterisk next to their name.

Tennis has no asterisks.