Alexander Zverev in Historical Context

[El Dude]

Here's a bit more historical precedents to provide context.

Slam-winning range of 6+ Slam winners of Open Era:
1968-72 Rosewall
1968-69 Laver
1970-75 Newcombe
1974-83 Connors
1974-81 Borg
1979-84 McEnroe
1982-87 Wilander
1984-90 Lendl
1985-92 Edberg
1985-96 Becker
1990-02 Sampras
1992-03 Agassi
2003-18 Federer
2005-18 Nadal
2008-19 Djokovic

One thing you might notice is that there is no gap in the spans. Meaning, there has been no year in the Open Era that didn't have at least one 6+ Slam winner within his Slam-winning years. Furthermore, there's never been a year in which a 6+ Slam winner didn't win a Slam. That means it is unlikely that we'll go a year without an all-time great winning a Slam or being active within a Slam-winning phase.

Novak's already won a Slam in 2019. If the pattern holds, that means that one of Novak, Rafa, or Roger will win a Slam in 2020 and/or a new 6+ Slam winner will win a Slam.

Again, this doesn't mean that the precedent can't be broken, but that it would be a 50-year precedent being broken - and thus is unlikely. This implies one or both of two things:

1) Roger, Rafa, and Novak are not done winning Slams for a few years yet.
2) The next 6+ Slam winner is close to winning his first Slam - sometime before the above three are done winning Slams.

This adds weight, I think, to my view that the next next 6+ Slam winner is a name we already know, be it Thiem, Zverev, Tsitisipas, FAA, or someone else.

 

[Moxie]

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?

I can't speak for Mrzz, but for myself, I'd say "yes," that there is no likely 6+ Slam winner in the current crop. Not that I think they lack talent, but I see it as dispersed.

 

[El Dude]

Another interesting factoid: There hasn't been a new Slam winner since 2014, meaning we've had at least four years (2015-18) with no new Slam winners, the longest period during the Open Era. In fact, there have only been a few years without at least one new Slam winner:

1968-69, 1973, 1978, 1986-87, 1994, 1999, 2006-07, 2010-11, 2013, 2015-19

 

[Moxie]

Here's a bit more historical precedents to provide context.

Slam-winning range of 6+ Slam winners of Open Era:
1968-72 Rosewall
1968-69 Laver
1970-75 Newcombe
1974-83 Connors
1974-81 Borg
1979-84 McEnroe
1982-87 Wilander
1984-90 Lendl
1985-92 Edberg
1985-96 Becker
1990-02 Sampras
1992-03 Agassi
2003-18 Federer
2005-18 Nadal
2008-19 Djokovic

One thing you might notice is that there is no gap in the spans. Meaning, there has been no year in the Open Era that didn't have at least one 6+ Slam winner within his Slam-winning years. Furthermore, there's never been a year in which a 6+ Slam winner didn't win a Slam. That means it is unlikely that we'll go a year without an all-time great winning a Slam or being active within a Slam-winning phase.

Novak's already won a Slam in 2019. If the pattern holds, that means that one of Novak, Rafa, or Roger will win a Slam in 2020 and/or a new 6+ Slam winner will win a Slam.

Again, this doesn't mean that the precedent can't be broken, but that it would be a 50-year precedent being broken - and thus is unlikely. This implies one or both of two things:

1) Roger, Rafa, and Novak are not done winning Slams for a few years yet.
2) The next 6+ Slam winner is close to winning his first Slam - sometime before the above three are done winning Slams.

This adds weight, I think, to my view that the next next 6+ Slam winner is a name we already know, be it Thiem, Zverev, Tsitisipas, FAA, or someone else.

On another thread, you cautioned me about using precedents to predict the future. I believe this was the one where we were disputing if Nadal could win RG without winning a tune-up. A precarious assertion, let's be honest. And yet you use precedents to say that you think the next 6+ Slam winner is someone we know, which is a much harder claim to make. Please tell me when precedents are worth looking at, and when they should be applied with caution, by your standards.

 

[El Dude]

On another thread, you cautioned me about using precedents to predict the future. I believe this was the one where we were disputing if Nadal could win RG without winning a tune-up. A precarious assertion, let's be honest. And yet you use precedents to say that you think the next 6+ Slam winner is someone we know, which is a much harder claim to make. Please tell me when precedents are worth looking at, and when they should be applied with caution, by your standards.

I think you got your Fedfans mixed up, because I wasn't disputing whether Nadal could win RG without winning a tune-up. In fact, you and I both said the same thing: that his level was what was important, not whether or not he won a title.

But to respond to your question, I think it boils down to 50 years vs. one year. There's only been one year in the time Rafa has played at the French Open (of 14, 2005-18) that he didn't win one of the three clay Slams and/or Barcelona, and that year (2015) he didn't win Roland Garros. That's virtually meaningless--its just one year. There have been over 50 years of the Open Era and not a single year was not within the Slam-winning span of a 6+ Slam winner.

 

[Moxie]

I think you got your Fedfans mixed up, because I wasn't disputing whether Nadal could win RG without winning a tune-up. In fact, you and I both said the same thing: that his level was what was important, not whether or not he won a title.

But to respond to your question, I think it boils down to 50 years vs. one year. There's only been one year in the time Rafa has played at the French Open (of 14, 2005-18) that he didn't win one of the three clay Slams and/or Barcelona, and that year (2015) he didn't win Roland Garros. That's virtually meaningless--its just one year. There have been over 50 years of the Open Era and not a single year was not within the Slam-winning span of a 6+ Slam winner.

You said this:

"That's the thing with precedents: just because something has or has not happened in the past, doesn't mean it won't or will happen in the future, but it does give us something to consider." Obviously, you're always trying to give us something to consider. But you're more insistent when it suits you. You said that relative to Rafa winning RG w/o a subsequent clay title. And as you say, it's one year. Even GSM admitted it's a small sample. As to when we get a 6+ Slam winner next, however, you're convinced by your stats. I do think you're comparing apples to oranges, though, as to making a claim about the law of averages giving us a savior in the next few years, v. Rafa winning RG w/o a clay title. Does that even make sense, as a comparison? I think not. All I'm saying is that you tell me to cool my jets about past precedent in one case, and then you tell us that stats are on your side, in another. You could also say that, whatever the stats, there's no proving that we have a 6+ Slam winner in our midst. The future is unknowable. Mostly you say that. But when pressed on stats that you like, you push back.

 

[El Dude]

Sigh. Why does everything have to be so contentious? I didn't bring Rafa in, you did, Moxie. And somehow you made this about Rafa. Again. Please stop making everything into a battle. There are plenty of folks here that like to squabble. Frankly I have no interest - I just want to talk tennis! I know...weird, huh? Is it possible that we just explore these questions and shoot the shit without everything becoming an argument? The precedent says otherwise .

 

[mrzz]

Here's a bit more historical precedents to provide context.

Slam-winning range of 6+ Slam winners of Open Era:
1968-72 Rosewall
1968-69 Laver
1970-75 Newcombe
1974-83 Connors
1974-81 Borg
1979-84 McEnroe
1982-87 Wilander
1984-90 Lendl
1985-92 Edberg
1985-96 Becker
1990-02 Sampras
1992-03 Agassi
2003-18 Federer
2005-18 Nadal
2008-19 Djokovic

One thing you might notice is that there is no gap in the spans. Meaning, there has been no year in the Open Era that didn't have at least one 6+ Slam winner within his Slam-winning years. Furthermore, there's never been a year in which a 6+ Slam winner didn't win a Slam. That means it is unlikely that we'll go a year without an all-time great winning a Slam or being active within a Slam-winning phase.

Novak's already won a Slam in 2019. If the pattern holds, that means that one of Novak, Rafa, or Roger will win a Slam in 2020 and/or a new 6+ Slam winner will win a Slam.

Again, this doesn't mean that the precedent can't be broken, but that it would be a 50-year precedent being broken - and thus is unlikely. This implies one or both of two things:

1) Roger, Rafa, and Novak are not done winning Slams for a few years yet.
2) The next 6+ Slam winner is close to winning his first Slam - sometime before the above three are done winning Slams.

This adds weight, I think, to my view that the next next 6+ Slam winner is a name we already know, be it Thiem, Zverev, Tsitisipas, FAA, or someone else.

Good point. On an interstate night bus with my cell phone so cannot expand that much. You showed that there is something about that 6 threshold. Maybe Fedalovic messed up that, too.

Enviado de meu XT1032 usando o Tapatalk

 

[don_fabio]

@El Dude re to Zverev blowing people of the court when he is playing well. I hope Tsitsipas can come to that soon as he develops a bit more.

I noticed you are rooting heavily for FAA and also some other tennis enthuziasts see something special in him. I still have to see him playing a match (hopefully Rome/RG). All I've seen so far are some highlights, but that doesn't count much.

You seem like a guy who likes statistics. Although sometimes stats don't show much and can be misleading I agree that they do also give us some pattern of what is to come or what we can expect and things become interesting.

After the lost gen failed so miserably on winning a slam, there's got to be another champion in the making. Let's assume that big 3 is done winning slams in about 7-8 years time. Next gen guys should be at their peak by then and good to win slams for another let's say 8 years. That makes 32 slams that can be spread among them and possibly some new gen guys again. That's a lot of slams, but I'm also assuming that they will be winning slams well in their 30s, that is something we got spoiled by the big 3 and might not happen that often. The next gen need to start with slams in a next 2-3 years which they will, I don't see another lost gen here. I see maybe 2 current next gen guys to have a real good chance of going 6+.

Also for next 6 years can we have Djodal prebooked for all the slams? As the years go by their chances have to reduce and they will be broken at some GSs. The question is still how often and when will it finally start, and once it does will it regularly occur each year that 1-2 slams goes their way (thiem+next gen)?

If Thiem steps up and cracks a first slam within a year, I definitely see him as a multiple slam winner, but can he go on and possibly catch 6pcs? Hard to say.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

Might I offer a different theory or opinion. First of all though, I'll say I picked Coric a number of years ago. Like 4. Maybe 3. Idk. So I'm already not a fan of Zverev. So I don't care one bit what he does. It's obvious he's got game. And more than game. The guy is awesome at times. But he's young. And you're allowed to be young. By which I mean, Fed lost a lot early on and still went on to be arguably the best to ever pick up a racket. Anyways. Just looks at the kid's record in the slams. It's a who's who of top players of the last 5 years.

He lost in qualifying in his first 3 slams dating to the 2014 US Open and then the AO and RG of 2015. He was 17 years old for those first two. He gets a pass until he's at least 19 or so. Right? Anyways. He lost to Kudla in the second round at Wimbledon. In 4 sets. As an 18 year old. Kudla was probably playing the best tennis of his life that year if I remember correctly. He won his next match to make the 4th round (l. Cilic 4 sets). The furthest he's ever been at a slam.
Then he qualified and lost to Kohschreiber in the US Open 1st round, 6-4 in the fifth set. Kohlschreiber is German and has probably played the kid a good bit and still nearly lost. He's still only 18.
Then Murray 2016 AO 1st round (straight sets).
Thiem RG 3r (4 sets). Went to semis.
Berdych Wimbledon 3r (4 sets). Went to semis.
Dan Evans USO 2r (4 sets).
2017
Nadal AO 3r (5 sets). Went to final. Is Rafa Nadal. Lost to Fed.
Verdasco RG 1r (4 sets).
Raonic Wimbledon 4r (5 sets). Defending finalist. Went to QF. Lost to Fed.
Coric USO 1r (4 sets 2 tiebreaks).
2018
Chung AO 3r (5 sets). Went to semis.
Thiem RG QF (straight sets). Went to Final.
Gulbis Wimbledon 3r (5 sets). Lost next round to Nishikori in 4 sets (two tiebreaks).
Kohlschreiber USO 3r (4 sets).
2019
Raonic AO 4r (straight sets).

There's only ONE BAD loss in there. Dan Evans. But he took a set and he was still only 19. Evans lost the next match to Wawrinka. But took Wawrinka to 5 sets. Wawrinka went on to win the title. Zverev would have had to play the eventual champion anyways. Verdasco is way past his prime. Sure. But he's a former top 10 player and has gone toe to toe with the greats at the slams for over a decade and taken Nadal to 5 I think more than once and maybe Djokovic or Fed or Murray. Don't remember. Gulbis well past his prime but he's still one of the most talented people to play in the last decade. Though beating Zverev got him to his first Wimbledon 4th round. Berdych in 2016, AT WIMBLEDON where he's been to the final and 2 other semis and 2 additional quarters. Raonic is NEVER an easy out. Chung at the AO last year was coming off a big win in the next gen finals just a couple months before. Was clearly playing his best tennis before his injuries.

I will say that in a couple of these matches, he completely lost or tanked the final sets. Which you all probably remember. He lost to Gulbis and Chung 6-love in the fifth last year. And he basically got trounced by Thiem at RG last year because he had to play 3 5 setters before that match. But. They were against Lajovic (who we now now know can really play on clay) Dzumhur (in the midst of the best tennis of his life) and Khachanov (who is in the conversation with Zverev as one of the next bright young guys).

Still. The point is that he's not losing to guys he absolutely shouldn't lose to. He's beating most of the guys he should actually. There's going to be growing pains. He's still young. We've seen a number of guys completely piss away their careers over the last decade (GUBLIS!!!!!!). This kid is not doing that. And while I'm really not a fan. He's 6'6" but moves like a normal 6'1" or 6'2" guy. He's solid off both sides. Of course has the serve. And brought on Lendl because he is trying to fix whatever may be wrong. And I've heard commentators talk about the long term plan he has with his physio to build his muscle. Which takes time. Because he's clearly got the wiry kid build. Which has helped him move better. But also has it's disadvantages. Muscle tone takes years to build. Not everyone can be Nadal at 18. On the court or in muscle tone. And Nadal's 18 year old muscles were still nothing compared to what he has now.

I honestly am not pulling for him to join the 6+ club. But I could still completely see him being the guy coming out of this group with the most slams. I hope it's Coric (I'm not optimistic currently). Though I hope quite a few of them get some. And I'm excited for the kids we still don't even know about.

But in this case. Perhaps more than I've ever seen for a young top player. Zverev has just had a run of very tough draws.

So I guess I'd say this is just a wait and see sort of thing. Which is sort of a duh captain obvious statement. But whatever.

 

[don_fabio]

Thank you for bringing up all his GS losses, much appreciated.

Although he lost many times to in form good quality player there is a general feeling that he is stagnating on GSs since that 5 set match against Nadal. And every time he need to deliver a good performance in a match he is a favourite, he still crumbles. Mental issue again and it bothers him very much. He was so furiois in this year AO against Raonic, a pure rage coming out.

I can imagine how much of a burden this whole GS thing has become to him. It is like he is under the scope every time he steps on court there. He has to overcome it and once he does will be a real GS threat I suppose.

He also need to find a coach with whom we can "click" with. So far I don't see that with Lendl, but you never know. Then he had Ferrero before...looks like Zverev is still searching for a tennis soul mate who can find a way how to bring out the best from him.

 

[Fiero425]

Thank you for bringing up all his GS losses, much appreciated.

Although he lost many times to in form good quality player there is a general feeling that he is stagnating on GSs since that 5 set match against Nadal. And every time he need to deliver a good performance in a match he is a favourite, he still crumbles. Mental issue again and it bothers him very much. He was so furiois in this year AO against Raonic, a pure rage coming out.

I can imagine how much of a burden this whole GS thing has become to him. It is like he is under the scope every time he steps on court there. He has to overcome it and once he does will be a real GS threat I suppose.

He also need to find a coach with whom we can "click" with. So far I don't see that with Lendl, but you never know. Then he had Ferrero before...looks like Zverev is still searching for a tennis soul mate who can find a way how to bring out the best from him.

Isn't Becker available and in serious need? More than likely they've already talked about it and nixed the idea! :whistle:

 

[don_fabio]

Isn't Becker available and in serious need? More than likely they've already talked about it and nixed the idea! :whistle:

That came across my mind as well at some point! Becker could use a million here and to flush it down the drain.

 

[Fiero425]

That came across my mind as well at some point! Becker could use a million here and to flush it down the drain.

Becker was a bit of an idiot throwing money away, but I bet Tiriac took more than he should've! He probably stole a nice portion of it to make himself the 1st tennis billionaire; owning businesses, land, tourneys, and a lot of other players to this day! :whistle:

 

[don_fabio]

Becker was a bit of an idiot throwing money away, but I bet Tiriac took more than he should've! He probably stole a nice portion of it to make himself the 1st tennis billionaire; owning businesses, land, tourneys, and a lot of other players to this day! :whistle:

I bet he got his hands dirty. He ended up with way too much money.

 

[Moxie]

Paul Annacone said that Alex has lost his agent and is handling his publicity himself. He says this is a terrible idea. I agree. Perhaps one answer as to the mystery of why he's falling so quickly. He needs people to manage his other-than-tennis-life.