Alexander Zverev in Historical Context

[El Dude]

Alex Zverev turned 22 years old a couple weeks ago, entering an age range that is the traditional peak range for many, even most players. I thought I'd share some numbers, to see how he stacks up among Open Era players.

The first criteria I'll use is "big titles" (Slams, tour finals, alternate tour finals like the WCT or Golden Cup, Masters, and Olympics). Zverev is one of 41 players in the Open Era with 4+ big titles, tied with Stan Wawrinka, Sergi Bruguera, Pat Rafter, Carlos Moya, Goran Ivanisevic, Nikolay Davydenko, and Andrei Medvedev.

Of the 41 players, only Davydenko, Medvedev, Marcelo Rios (6 big titles), and Miroslav Mecir (5 big titles) never won Slams. In other words, 36 of the other 40 players won at least a single Slam, or 90%.

As of his 22nd birthday, Zverev has won 10 titles, 4 big titles, and his best Slam result so far is a QF. Here are the most similar 4+ big title winners according to results at age 22, with those results:

Player (career Slam total/big title total): Slams, big titles, titles, and best Slam result through age 22:

Andy Murray (3/20): 0 Slams, 3 BT, 11 titles, Final
Ivan Lendl (8/37): 0 Slams, 4 BT, 17 titles, Final
Andre Agassi (8/27): 0 Slams, 2 BT, 15 titles, Final
Andrei Medvedev (0/4): 0 Slams, 3 BT, 10 titles, SF

Those are the four players with the most similar results through age 22. As you can see, we have two bonafide all-time greats in Lendl and Agassi, one lesser great in Murray, and one solid second tier type in Medvedev, who peaked very young, winning his last of four big titles at age 22 and retiring at age 27.

Of the 41 players with 4+ big titles, only 15 of them had 4 or more big titles by the time they turned 22, including Rafael Nadal leading the way with 15 (!). The list also includes Becker (14), Borg (13), McEnroe (9), Wilander (8), Connors (6), Edberg (6), Sampras (6), Djokovic (6), Chang (5), Hewitt (5), Lendl (4), Courier (4), Roddick (4), and Zverev (4). Not bad company. Of those other 14, ten won 6+ Slams, two won multiples, and two won a single Slam - but all won Slams. All except Chang were #1s

(Notable greats behind that pace are Federer and Agassi, both with 2 big titles on their 22nd birthday).

Anyhow, obviously Zverev is his own unique self, but according to precedents he'll probably be an all-time great 6+ Slam winner and almost certainly will win at least a couple Slams and be #1. Not surprising, of course, but worth considering.

The only point of concern is his poor performance at Slams so far - most of the 41 had a better than QF appearance by 22. Both Vilas and Wawrinka only reached a 3R by the time they turned 22, so there are precedents for 3-4 Slam winners who started poorly at Slams, but no 6+ Slam winners. Of the 6+ Slam winners only Newcombe, Lendl and Agassi hadn't yet won a Slam by their 22nd birthday.

 

[mrzz]

Very good compilation of data. The comparison with Murray, Lendl, Agassi and A. Medvedev is particularly interesting. Even if I mildly dislike him (but it oscillates, for example this days I saw him apologizing with a lines person after a serve hit her. Most players ignore it, and I thought it was a decent thing to do. Those little things end up composing my feeling towards a person -- as much as try to ignore the "person" on focus on the player), it is obvious that he is out of the curve.

As @Moxie have put, there are some basics which he could work on, but I tend to think that his main issue is mental -- maybe because I had that strong impression when he was younger.

One thing I can say for sure is that his level oscillates heavily from his winning and losing "modes", and that oscillation can happen during one match. Maybe he has not learned the very important big player trick which of winning matches playing poorly.

 

[Federberg]

I disagree with the fundamental premise here that players reach their peak around 22yrs old. Everything about the last decade tells us this is not the case anymore. Furthermore Zverev hasn't done enough yet to earn the right to be considered comparable to some of those former greats. It's even worse when you remember that back in those days Masters equivalents were 5 setters as well, so his achievements in 3 set Masters series now is in no way an indicator of future slam success, it's apples to oranges.

I really hope he proves me wrong, but so far his complete lack of slam pedigree makes him more of a Ferrer at best (Dimitrov at worst) than a Lendl. As slow a start as Lendl had his issue was a failure to execute in slam semis and finals. Ivan was actually getting there, I won't hold it against him that he had to deal with the likes of Borg, Mac and Connors. I'll just be happy if Zverev can get to a final four right now

 

[don_fabio]

One thing I can say for sure is that his level oscillates heavily from his winning and losing "modes", and that oscillation can happen during one match. Maybe he has not learned the very important big player trick which of winning matches playing poorly.

Exactly. Last year RG where he came in a peak form he struggled against the players he should won in straight sets and ended up playing 5. He still don't have a single match where he at least pushed or won against Fedalovic in BO5. Did I miss something?

His problem is very much mental for a start and then it comes to abilities and tactical play. Expectations are set too high and looks like he has this pressure all on him for too long. He seems very much impatient to win a slam and become #1, but it takes time and it just won't happen in Fedalovic era unless he can take them down. He has to accept this and concentrate on improving his game. Even then the results are not guaranteed.

Thiem on a other hand has one epic against Nadal from the last year USO and he has beaten Nole in RG (not the best Nole but still a win). I am writing this from the top of my head so maybe I am missing something? I believe that he is going to have some more of those within a next few slams.

For what I see at the moment a next new multiple GS winner could be Thiem not Zverev. Thiem is the guy working his way up away from the spotlight and I actually like him much more.

As fed said, it is also true that guys are peaking later and later in today's tennis so Thiem fits that. I just hope that with Massu as a coach he starts playing less and less tournaments and gets really serious in shaking the elites. We just have to wait and watch.

 

[El Dude]

QUOTE="Federberg, post: 376259, member: 13"]I disagree with the fundamental premise here that players reach their peak around 22yrs old. Everything about the last decade tells us this is not the case anymore. Furthermore Zverev hasn't done enough yet to earn the right to be considered comparable to some of those former greats. It's even worse when you remember that back in those days Masters equivalents were 5 setters as well, so his achievements in 3 set Masters series now is in no way an indicator of future slam success, it's apples to oranges.

I really hope he proves me wrong, but so far his complete lack of slam pedigree makes him more of a Ferrer at best (Dimitrov at worst) than a Lendl. As slow a start as Lendl had his issue was a failure to execute in slam semis and finals. Ivan was actually getting there, I won't hold it against him that he had to deal with the likes of Borg, Mac and Connors. I'll just be happy if Zverev can get to a final four right now[/QUOTE]

You're missing the fine point re: 22: I said "traditional" - meaning, historically. And yes, traditionally/historically most players reach their peak by around 22. But I agree that in recent years that has been pushed back a couple years, so that 24-25 might be the new 21-22. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if someone like FAA bucks the trend and reaches his peak by about 21 or so.

Zverev is hard to project and I go back and forth on my expectations. My guess is we get something more in the middle - better than Ferrer and Dimitrov, but not on the level of a true great. Perhaps something a bit below the Vilas/Murray/Courier range. I do think he'll end up winning Slams, just probably not more than a few.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing about comparing Masters from the past to now. It might be that while five-setters were harder to win, three-setters are easier to lose - the shorter format leads to a higher likelihood of an upset.

Furthermore, while it is easier to have surprise winners and "one-Masters" wonders, with players like Isner, Sock, and Fognini winning Masters in recent years, winning four big titles is nothing to sneeze at, given the way that the Big Four have dominated the big titles. In other words, one big title might be something of a fluke--or rather, right combination of factors--but winning four implies a higher and more consistent level of talent.

 

[Federberg]

^Winning Masters series back in the day is simply a higher level challenge than it is today, we can tangle ourselves in logic to make a case for the current fare, but it really doesn't stand up. I watched those things back in the day, they were brutally tough. My heart flutters when I hear pundits pushing for 3 set matches in slams. It's the difference between McDonalds and Peter Luger imho. The day that's done, cross era comparability will die a hard death.

This is only part of the problem however, let's at least wait until the guy does something relevant in a slam - he's been to what... one QF? One! Trying to project his future pedigree without any evidence at all of capabilities in slams is just reaching. To my mind it would make more sense to look at Tsitsipas in this way as things currently stand. And even better as @don_fabio says Thiem is the ideal subject. Now there's a guy with pedigree

 

[mrzz]

The more I look, the more I think this guy is an statistical anomaly. As much as I agree that the majors are the ultimate measure, and 1 mere quarter final (and it is not he consistently reaches R4, it is much worst than that) is way, way bellow average, the rest of his resume is to good to be dismissed. It is not only his titles, but the stars have not aligned for him to win them. He only beat quality players in all his big finals (ok, you can put most of them into context, but still). He is consistently at the top 5 for a while. This two "halves" simply don't fit. On one hand, I don't see him as someone that good in order to have 4 big titles (which is probably more than all that players younger than, what, 27 or 28 years old have combined), on the other hand I don't think he is that bad to only have one major QF in his resume (and a lot of R1 and R2's exits).

 

[Federberg]

I won’t dispute he’s different. Perhaps he needs his own category. Just doesn’t merit comparisons with all time greats yet

 

[mrzz]

One underlying assumption which I guess @El Dude is making (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that there is a roughly constant rate of all time greats coming along. With the total population of players always growing (not active players, but all that have played), it becomes harder and harder to be an all time great.

However, since the "beginning" of it all is relatively close, we indeed witnessed a steady flow of all time greats. I will give a simple illustration even if I know the usual suspects already got my point:

Let's say we are not looking at tennis players but for random numbers in the [0,1000000] range. We first draw 100 numbers. And we collect the largest 10 (our "all time greats"). In our first batch of 100, we forcibly have 10 "all time greats". Then we draw another 100 numbers and collect the again the top 10 (but from the whole set of 100 + 100 = 200 numbers). Probably a few of the first 10 "all time greats" still are in the top 10, but some others drop out given the new ones that were larger than them. Let us say that, for example, 6 numbers of this second batch join the "all time greats" list. At each new batch of 100 numbers, it becomes harder and harder to get new "all time greats". At some point those batches of 100 numbers will come and go and no new "all time great" might appear.

Obviously the parallel is not perfect, but you get my point. Going back to tennis, complicating matters still is the fact that we just had three guys completely out of the curve (IMO at least), so I simply won't get surprised if we don't see a new all time great for a long while.

 

[Moxie]

I agree with mrzz above, and the notion that comparing Zverev's progress to the future hall of famers is a bit of a fool's errand. I do agree with El Dude that, if you're going to be a multi-Slam winner in a big way, you have to start winning them by 22/23. But it's unlikely that Zverev, or anyone else on offer at the moment, for that matter, is going to be the next Fed/Rafa/Novak.

Also, am I wrong about this, but MS were Bo5 in finals, but not during the rest of the event.

 

[Federberg]

Also, am I wrong about this, but MS were Bo5 in finals, but not during the rest of the event.

yes correct

 

[don_fabio]

Also agree with mrzz numbers theory. It is really hard to see another guy soon chasing records simply due to the fact that the bars are set so high.

If I had to predict how some of the next gen guys will do on a GS count, I would put Tsitsipas before Zverev anytime. The mental part he showed in that AO match against Fed cannot be ignored no matter how much the swiss was poor with bp conversion and showed age. I see the greek as the next one to challenge Fedalovic in the slams.

Right next to the greek is Medvedev who really impressed in AO and pushed Nole. That match could have easily went to fifth set. In a last half a year or so we saw him not only winning in some earlier rounds of tournaments, but literally destroying the guys leaving them fighting to win a few games, not even close to a set. That shows power and that he could win matches with a B game if I needed (feature of the elite)

When it comes to Coric I am not sure quite yet. Although I do like Coric for his admirable fighting spirit, he still lacks consistency and some real weapon. He still fails when he is a favourite like in AO match against Pouille. He should've won that one and pushed to a breakthrough SF match via the Agut. He could possibly also peak later in his career and I think he is very dangerous as an underdog. He showed that in one USO winning against Zverev. When I see that Cilic was a GS winner, I do feel that Coric will achieve the same and hopefully even more. Maybe Coric don't deserve do be highlighted, but I really hope he can rise up his game and win some big titles.

There is another bunch coming up like Shapovalov/FAA/Ruud/Garin, but I want to wait and see them develop more.

 

[El Dude]

@mrzz, emphasis on "roughly." If nothing else, someone has to win big titles and Slams. We're in an unusual--unprecedented, I would say--era in that we haven't seen the emergence of a new all-time great in quite some time, and this is at least partially due to the presence of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, quite possibly the three greatest players in tennis history. Or to put it another way, here are the birth years of players who won 6+ Slams in the Open Era (I've included Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe, even though they didn't win 6 of their respective Slams in the Open Era - they did win some of them, unlike, say, Roy Emerson):

1934, 1938, 1944, 1952, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1981, 1986, 1987...and???

Or in years, we have 4, 6, 8, 4, 3, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 10, 5, 2, ?

The biggest gap is 1971 and '81 which is, of course, Sampras and Federer.

Now it seems highly unlikely that any of LostGen (b. 1989-93, by my reckoning) will win 6+ Slams. I suppose there's a slight chance that Dominic Thiem could win a bunch of French Opens and maybe sprinkle in an AO or USO, but he's already 25 so needs to get going. The weak years continue through players born in 1994 and '95; Kyrgios has the talent, but clearly not the mentality. But NextGen starts getting good in the next several years:

1996: Coric, Medvedev, Khachanov, Garin, Berretini, Chung, Kokkinakis
1997: Zverev, Rublev, Fritz, Munar, Opelka, Hurkacz
1998: Tsitsipas, Tiafoe, Humbert, Ruud, Mmoh
1999: Shapovalov, de Minaur, Kecmanovic, Moutet, Popyrin
2000: Auger-Aliassime, Molleker, Kuhn

(I am not saying that all of those players have a chance of winning 6+ Slams, just listing some of the better players born in each year).

Of the 6+ Slam winners, all of them except for Lendl won their first Slam at age 22 or younger, meaning the age that the players born in 1997 are turning this year. Lendl won his first at age 24. Andy Murray, who could have been on the road to 6+ if he hadn't gotten injuried, won his first at age 25. Wawrinka, who won 3, won his first at age 28 - the oldest for a 3+ Slam winner.

Players do seem to be coming into their own at later ages, but it is hard to sell just how much later as the waters are muddied by the presence of the Great Ones. But I would assume that at least one of the players named above will join the ranks of 6+ Slam winners, and quite possibly more than one. Who it is going to be is anyone's guess. I've gone on record in throwing my chips in with Auger-Aliassime, but in the end we won't know until we know. It may also be that none do, but instead we have a half a dozen guys winning 3-5 Slams.

Anyway, back to @mrzz's point. I think it depends upon what you mean by "all-time great." I like to set the bar at 6+ Slams, as that seems to line up with the actual players - plus there's a nice gap of no players with 5 Slams, so we can see on one hand the seven (Newcombe, McEnrore, Wilander) and six Slam winners (Edberg, Becker) and on the other the four Slam winners (Vilas, Courier) and three Slam winners (Ashe, Kodes, Kuerten, Murray, Wawrinka) and I feel comfortable saying the former (6-7) are all-time greats and the latter (3-4) "lesser" or "borderline" greats.

Now obviously Slams cannot be the only qualifying factor, as there are numerous instances where a player's overall greatness and resume is not adequately represented by their Slam count. The player that comes to mind for me is Ilie Nastase, who only won 2 Slams but was a far greater player than Jan Kodes (3) and every player who won 1-2 Slams.

Anyhow, my point is that if you set the bar of "all-time great" at 6+ Slams, then it is only a matter of time before we have more all-time greats. But if we think more in terms of "ten best ever" etc, as your numbers theory points at then, yes, it becomes increasingly hard to join the ranks.

 

[El Dude]

@don_fabio, I agree with you re: Tsitsipas over Zverev. That said, while I like Tsitsipas court presence and mentality better, Zverev seems more capable of dominant play. I haven't seen Tsitsipas just blow people off court like I've seen Zverev do. This is just my impression and I haven't looked at the actual numbers, but it does seem that Tsitsipas wins by smaller margins. Anyhow, assuming health, I think FAA will be better than both.

 

[Moxie]

Respectfully, I would say that one basic fallacy in all of this is looking for the next "All-Time Great." You said above @El Dude: "I suppose there's a slight chance that Dominic Thiem could win a bunch of French Opens and maybe sprinkle in an AO or USO, but he's already 25 so needs to get going." You did say 'slight chance,' but look how many Majors you're potentially laying at his door. A "bunch" of FO's? In all of Open-Era tennis history, aside from Rafa's 11 and Borg's 6, there are 3 that have won 3, and 3 that have won 2. In 51 years. I think we're too used to people becoming extra-multiple Slam winners because we've had 14-17 years of it. There are a lot of clay players coming up, and I doubt that Thiem wins more than 1-2, for that reason. He's very, very good, but is he great? Just because we're hoping for the next Big Thing, doesn't mean we're going to get it. We've also talked about the coming of a "Wild West," wherein a lot of players feature, trade best fortunes, etc. You make a point about 6+ Slams being a kind of cut-off. 6+ Slams is a serious thing. Just because it seemed "so easy" for Fedalovic, I'm not sure we're going to see it again in the next even 10 years. We see young talent, but do we see anyone streaking obviously as the one person across the firmament? Not really. This thread is about Zverev, but really there are just lots of them with solid potential, atm, and I think that best indication is that they'll battle each other here and there. Trade #1 back-and-forth. There are lots of young players I like a lot, but I don't see a comet.

PS: This is a nod to @mrzz, who already made the point that we may not see an all-time great anytime soon. I just couldn't work that in.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, note that I said "slight chance," which should make clear that I don't favor Thiem's chances of winning a bunch of French Opens, just that of all the players born 1988 and until 1996, he's got the best chance. I agree that 1-2 is far more likely. So I'm not sure what the basic fallacy is - except maybe setting the bar of all-time great at Fedalovic - which is unrealistic. We'll see more 6+ Slam winners, and probably at least one player on the tour today will be one of them.

That said, I think FAA has a chance of being that "comet." No other young player, at least currently in the top 100, has his upside. In my opinion.

 

[mrzz]

I got your point, @El Dude. But, even if, as you said, someone has to win the majors, that does not mean that someone will win 6 majors anytime soon. But, again as you said, at some point someone will win 6. Then someone else will. Then, in due time, maybe you will need to correct your bar to 7 majors... and we are not even factoring in a possible grow in the whole population of tennis players (which would, in principle at least, make it harder for a player to dominate the whole field).

All in all, I agree that is possible (not so sure if it is likely) for someone like Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, FAA, etc to win 6 majors and/or become an all time great. Now that we are discussing it, I am (or became) aware that my argument above works just in the long run, in other words there is still some time until we will need to correct the (tentative) 6 majors bar to 7, for example.

The main thing is, like @Moxie said above, we got used to players winning dozens of majors. We even think that Djokovic is close to Federer being 5 behind -- well, this is not to dismiss Djokovic, but 5 alone is almost the current cut for all time great. It only looks "so few" because of those three freaks..

Anyway, back to Zverev, as Moxie said -- but since he is the paradigmatic "next big thing" of the last two years, this discussion is well placed here.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, note that I said "slight chance," which should make clear that I don't favor Thiem's chances of winning a bunch of French Opens, just that of all the players born 1988 and until 1996, he's got the best chance. I agree that 1-2 is far more likely. So I'm not sure what the basic fallacy is - except maybe setting the bar of all-time great at Fedalovic - which is unrealistic. We'll see more 6+ Slam winners, and probably at least one player on the tour today will be one of them.

That said, I think FAA has a chance of being that "comet." No other young player, at least currently in the top 100, has his upside. In my opinion.

Note that I did quote your "slight chance." And yes, the basic fallacy is that the bar is too high, atm. I'm not saying you're wrong, (which "fallacy" would imply,) I'm just saying that your standards are potentially misaligned with what is possible for the up-coming field. What has been done in the recent past is not necessarily going to be replicated, or even close, in the near future. I respect your undying commitment to FAA. I'd be perfectly happy if he's that comet. But forgive me if I stretch a metaphor too far...I think that what we have is a meteor shower, for now, amongst the youngsters. It's really hard to tell who is going to burn brightest, and who will burn out.

 

[El Dude]

Part of what makes this all exciting is not knowing who is going to be "the one" - or if there is going to be a "one" (or two, three, etc). I think we are all in general agreement that A) There is no clear one (or greats), and B) there may be no "greats" (6+ Slam winners) in the current crop.

That said, where I think there is divergence is in the likelihood that at least one of the current players becomes a 6+ Slam winner. I seem to think it more likely than either of you do. I say "probably" and you both seem to be saying "maybe, but probably not." Yes?