2025 Australian Open Men's Final: Yannik Sinner vs. Sascha Zverev

[El Dude]

Back to Zverev vs. Rios vs. other Slamless guys. Using my PEP system, the thirty best seasons by Slamless players are:

32 Alexander Zverev 2021
31 Alexander Zverev 2024
29 Brian Gottfried, 1977
29 Marcelo Rios, 1998
28 Tom Okker, 1973
25 David Ferrer, 2012
23 Harold Solomon, 1976
21 Raul Ramirez, 1976
21 Miloslav Mecir, 1987
21 Guy Forget, 1991
21 Alexander Zverev 2018
20 Jose Luis Clerc, 1981
19 Tom Okker, 1971
19 Eddie Dibbs, 1978
19 Gene Mayer, 1980
19 Alex Corretja, 1998
19 Guillermo Coria, 2003
19 Robin Soderling, 2010
19 Kei Nishikori, 2014
19 Milos Roanic, 2016
19 Stefanos Tsitsipas, 2022
18 Cliff Richey, 1970
18 Magnus Norman, 2000
18 David Ferrer, 2011
18 Kei Nishikori 2016
18 Grigor Dimitrov 2017
18 Stefanos Tsitsipas 2019
18 Stefanos Tsitsipas 2021
17 Nikolay Davydenko 2009
17 Alexander Zverev 2017

Now the best Slamless season is probably either Rod Laver in 1970 or Ivan Lendl in 1982, both with 43 PEP - not to mention a bunch others by Slam winners (e.g. Roger in 2011, 2014-15). But obviously those guys won Slams so I'm not including them in the list above. Tony Roche's 1969 at 37 PEP was also better, but he won a Slam in the amateur era so I don't think counts.

As you can see, Zverev has the two best seasons and two others on the list. Rios's 1998 is tied for 3rd best, with no others on the list. Mecir's 1987 is top 10; and Nalbandian isn't even on the list -- his best seasons were in the 10-12 PEP range, which is pretty standard for a prime season by a second tier type. I also highlighted Tsitsipas as the only player other than Zverev to have three or more seasons in the top 30.

 

[mrzz]

Back to Zverev vs. Rios vs. other Slamless guys. Using my PEP system, the thirty best seasons by Slamless players are:

32 Alexander Zverev 2021
31 Alexander Zverev 2024
29 Brian Gottfried, 1977
29 Marcelo Rios, 1998
28 Tom Okker, 1973
25 David Ferrer, 2012
23 Harold Solomon, 1976
21 Raul Ramirez, 1976
21 Miloslav Mecir, 1987
21 Guy Forget, 1991
21 Alexander Zverev 2018
20 Jose Luis Clerc, 1981
19 Tom Okker, 1971
19 Eddie Dibbs, 1978
19 Gene Mayer, 1980
19 Alex Corretja, 1998
19 Guillermo Coria, 2003
19 Robin Soderling, 2010
19 Kei Nishikori, 2014
19 Milos Roanic, 2016
19 Stefanos Tsitsipas, 2022
18 Cliff Richey, 1970
18 Magnus Norman, 2000
18 David Ferrer, 2011
18 Kei Nishikori 2016
18 Grigor Dimitrov 2017
18 Stefanos Tsitsipas 2019
18 Stefanos Tsitsipas 2021
17 Nikolay Davydenko 2009
17 Alexander Zverev 2017

Now the best Slamless season is probably either Rod Laver in 1970 or Ivan Lendl in 1982, both with 43 PEP - not to mention a bunch others by Slam winners (e.g. Roger in 2011, 2014-15). But obviously those guys won Slams so I'm not including them in the list above. Tony Roche's 1969 at 37 PEP was also better, but he won a Slam in the amateur era so I don't think counts.

As you can see, Zverev has the two best seasons and two others on the list. Rios's 1998 is tied for 3rd best, with no others on the list. Mecir's 1987 is top 10; and Nalbandian isn't even on the list -- his best seasons were in the 10-12 PEP range, which is pretty standard for a prime season by a second tier type. I also highlighted Tsitsipas as the only player other than Zverev to have three or more seasons in the top 30.

If Tsitsipas is on a list, that list is meaningless.

 

[mrzz]

I don't know mate, I don't think you can ever have claim to being "the guy" without winning a big cup. He was only number one for a few weeks. Sampras was still "the guy" for me.

I agree. Point is that for a very small interval of time it seemed Rios would get his major at any given moment, or better, when he would care to get one. Not even sure if that period of time overlaps with his time as number one. And maybe I get some south American bias... Anyway I get the feeling that for a short while he was seen as the guy to beat, or at least one of the two guys to beat.

 

[Vince Evert]

Just been announced the Nine Network AU tv ratings for the mens final...


The 2025 Australian Open men's final achieved a National Total TV Reach of 4.166 million viewers for Nine.

The event, where Jannik Sinner won over Alexander Zverev to claim his second straight Australian Open title, drew a National Total TV Average Audience of 2.001 million, and a BVOD audience of 384,000 - up 17.4% year-on-year.

The final was Australia’s number one program on Sunday by reach.

The post-match presentation achieved a National Total TV Reach of 2.043 million, a National Total TV Average Audience of 699,000, and a BVOD audience of 158,000.

The pre-match programming secured a National Total TV Reach of 1.972 million, a National Total TV Average Audience of 799,000, and a BVOD audience of 118,000.

Over the 15 days of the tournament, a cumulative reach of 13.074 million was achieved by the network.

4 million tune into Australian Open final - AdNews

Australia’s number one program on Sunday by reach.

www.adnews.com.au

 

[Vince Evert]

 

[Vince Evert]

 

[El Dude]

A follow-up to the Rios etc discussion. Statistics reach their limit when determining absolute peak level. But part of that is because there are literally dozens of players who are capable of truly sublime tennis at their very best. Novak talked about this at one point, that what separates the top players is more mental. We can even see this with Marin Cilic, who was the best player in the world for one tournament: the 2014 USO. You can look at individual tournaments and compare stuff like games won vs lost, but really I think this is where our actual visual experience is most interesting to talk about.

The problem, though, is memory. Memory is a finicky fellow - it selects out and re-arranges things to form a general impression. I don't think it is wrong to say that Rios was a remarkable player for a bit there (or Nalbandian, etc), but when we conflate that memory impression with their actual total impact and career, it becomes greatly distorting.

Nalbandian is a great example of this. Everyone who saw him play remembers the talent, and for a few tournament it was actualized. In particular his 2007 Madrid title remains one of the most impressive runs in Open Era history, defeating the Big Three in succession, plus Berdych and Del Potro. Just incredible (yes, I know it was young Novak, but he was already elite, so stfu ;-). We saw in that moment - as we had seen before - that Nalbandian had the talent to be a truly great player, but looking at his career as a whole, he just wasn't. He was a super-talented player who had a pretty good career, but didn't actualize that talent enough to be a great.

In other words, one of the necessary ingredients in the Greatness Soup was missing for Nalbandian.

Rios had one great season - and 1998 was great, despite not including a Slam. He won three Masters, the Grand Slam Cup, and reached a Slam final. As I mentioned above in my list, it was one of the best seasons ever by a non-Slam winner. I sort of like to add Slam finals as equivalent to the general category of "big titles," so "big events" - and not many players have had five big events in a season (maybe I'll do the research later). So his talent was more actualized than Nalbandian's, at least that year.

But I wanted to highlight one more element, which relates to talent and has overlap with "actualized talent." It is how good a player is when he's not playing his very best. Here we can see why Jannik Sinner, right now, is a better player than Carlos Alcaraz. The drop-off from Sinner's best to his typical or "median" level isn't that large, while Alcaraz is more substantial. Nalbandian was capable of brilliant play, but what was his typical level?

If we imagine a 100-point scale, with 50 being top 100, 60 being top 30/seeded, 70 being top 10, 80 being top 5, 90 being #1 caliber, and 100 being absolute best ever (Rafa on clay), we could say that Sinner's best level is something like 95-96, while Alcaraz is a shade higher at maybe 97-98. But Jannik's typical level is something like 90-92, while Alcaraz's is maybe 85ish.

Who knows, maybe David Nalbandian at the 2007 Madrid Masters was as good as Rafa on clay, a true 100. I don't feel qualified to make that assessment, beyond a general range (I'd say his level was more 98-99, which is peak Roger on grass, peak Novak on hards, peak Borg on clay and grass, Mac on carpet, etc). But if current Jannik is something like 95+/90+ in terms of top and typical levels of play, and Alcaraz 95++/85, Nalbandian in his prime was more 95+/70. That gap there in "typical" level of play makes all the difference.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Zverev hasn’t got the head for big finals. He’s too one dimensional, as well, so when he’s stressed he can’t improvise, when he’s losing he has no great ability to switch and hang on. He’s too predictable. I’d say Sinner knew early on he’d get a lot of chances to taut the first set, and once he won that set, it was only an academic exercise to watch the rest of it, one which I bailed on in favour of a stroll around the botanic gardens..

Very true words my ole friend.. I would suggest that he seek out the therapist who helped Madison Keys. Also, it doesnt make sense that his older brother was just a serve and volley player while Sascha struggles in the front court. Sascha was correct, this version of Sinner does EVERYTHING on the tennis court better than he does. That's a very profound statement. @don_fabio I have NEVER walked on a tennis court and felt my opponent did EVERYTHING better than me. That's a defeat before the match begins.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

If Tsitsipas is on a list, that list is meaningless.

FWIW, if you move up the cutoff to a minimum of 20 points, his name never appears. Proving that Tsitsipas is just above average, but nothing really spectacular. Heck, I consider Nishikori's seasons more impressive than Tsitsipas. Nishikori went up against that impressive group of 1985-88 births (Wawrinka, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, and Cilic) when they were at or very close to their primes, not to mention a past his prime but still-contending Federer. Tsitsipas racked up his stats when those players were older and past their primes.

If Tsitsipas was born in 1989, he would have been an afterthought in the history of tennis. If Nishikori was born in the late 90s, he probably carves out a Wawrinka type career.

 

[mrzz]

A follow-up to the Rios etc discussion. Statistics reach their limit when determining absolute peak level. But part of that is because there are literally dozens of players who are capable of truly sublime tennis at their very best. Novak talked about this at one point, that what separates the top players is more mental. We can even see this with Marin Cilic, who was the best player in the world for one tournament: the 2014 USO. You can look at individual tournaments and compare stuff like games won vs lost, but really I think this is where our actual visual experience is most interesting to talk about.

The problem, though, is memory. Memory is a finicky fellow - it selects out and re-arranges things to form a general impression. I don't think it is wrong to say that Rios was a remarkable player for a bit there (or Nalbandian, etc), but when we conflate that memory impression with their actual total impact and career, it becomes greatly distorting.

Nalbandian is a great example of this. Everyone who saw him play remembers the talent, and for a few tournament it was actualized. In particular his 2007 Madrid title remains one of the most impressive runs in Open Era history, defeating the Big Three in succession, plus Berdych and Del Potro. Just incredible (yes, I know it was young Novak, but he was already elite, so stfu ;-). We saw in that moment - as we had seen before - that Nalbandian had the talent to be a truly great player, but looking at his career as a whole, he just wasn't. He was a super-talented player who had a pretty good career, but didn't actualize that talent enough to be a great.

In other words, one of the necessary ingredients in the Greatness Soup was missing for Nalbandian.

Rios had one great season - and 1998 was great, despite not including a Slam. He won three Masters, the Grand Slam Cup, and reached a Slam final. As I mentioned above in my list, it was one of the best seasons ever by a non-Slam winner. I sort of like to add Slam finals as equivalent to the general category of "big titles," so "big events" - and not many players have had five big events in a season (maybe I'll do the research later). So his talent was more actualized than Nalbandian's, at least that year.

But I wanted to highlight one more element, which relates to talent and has overlap with "actualized talent." It is how good a player is when he's not playing his very best. Here we can see why Jannik Sinner, right now, is a better player than Carlos Alcaraz. The drop-off from Sinner's best to his typical or "median" level isn't that large, while Alcaraz is more substantial. Nalbandian was capable of brilliant play, but what was his typical level?

If we imagine a 100-point scale, with 50 being top 100, 60 being top 30/seeded, 70 being top 10, 80 being top 5, 90 being #1 caliber, and 100 being absolute best ever (Rafa on clay), we could say that Sinner's best level is something like 95-86, while Alcaraz is a shade higher at maybe 97-98. But Jannik's typical level is something like 90-92, while Alcaraz's is maybe 85ish.

Who knows, maybe David Nalbandian at the 2007 Madrid Masters was as good as Rafa on clay, a true 100. I don't feel qualified to make that assessment, beyond a general range (I'd say his level was more 98-99, which is peak Roger on grass, peak Novak on hards, peak Borg on clay and grass, Mac on carpet, etc). But if current Jannik is something like 95+/90+ in terms of top and typical levels of play, and Alcaraz 95++/85, Nalbandian in his prime was more 95+/70. That gap there in "typical" level of play makes all the difference.

Forum rules should forbid users to post multiple debate-inducing good ideas in one single post.

 

[don_fabio]

Very true words my ole friend.. I would suggest that he seek out the therapist who helped Madison Keys. Also, it doesnt make sense that his older brother was just a serve and volley player while Sascha struggles in the front court. Sascha was correct, this version of Sinner does EVERYTHING on the tennis court better than he does. That's a very profound statement. @don_fabio I have NEVER walked on a tennis court and felt my opponent did EVERYTHING better than me. That's a defeat before the match begins.

Agreed. Sounds like he lost the match in the locker room. Now that you mentioned his brother Mischa, it is a bit odd that he couldn't teach Sacha a few tricks around the net in all this time together. Sacha just awful at the net for a 2nd player in the world. I think Sacha needs to add someone to work on his mental issues, more self belief for a start.