Rolex Paris Masters 2024, Bercy, France - ATP Masters 1000

[Moxie]

But at the 12th hour, little Holger blows it again and loses.

Yeah, bummer. But, in fairness to Zverev, he's playing some awfully good tennis.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yeah, bummer. But, in fairness to Zverev, he's playing some awfully good tennis.

Zverev also ties with Sinner for 65 wins of the year

 

[Moxie]

And again, consider the difference between "floor" and "ceiling" as a span of likely outcomes. I think Fils' floor is higher than Rune's at this point.

You've added the caveat "at this point," but I wonder why you think that Fils' floor is higher than Rune's. Isn't the sample size rather small? Why do you find Rune's "floor" deeper? Head? Impatience? Serve, by comparison?

Fils, at worst (barring injury) is going to be a back-end top 10 player - a guy who wins a bunch of 250s and 500s, and maybe several Masters.

I think it's early to say that. Isn't it easy to say that, when they're 20? How many have disappointed us?

Rune, at worst, is going to continue flailing and be a cautionary tale.

But yes, Rune has a super-high ceiling. If he puts it together and gets his head on right, he's going to be the third of a new Big Three. I don't think Fils is capable of that.

That's fair, and I agree that Fils doesn't look like a world-beater, just potentially solid. Yes, Rune has all kinds of potential to be the real deal, or a "cautionary tale," but there is also somewhere in between. I do still feel he'll find his way to making something interesting of his talent. We'll see how far that goes, down the road.

 

[El Dude]

You've added the caveat "at this point," but I wonder why you think that Fils' floor is higher than Rune's. Isn't the sample size rather small? Why do you find Rune's "floor" deeper? Head? Impatience? Serve, by comparison?

I think it's early to say that. Isn't it easy to say that, when they're 20? How many have disappointed us?

That's fair, and I agree that Fils doesn't look like a world-beater, just potentially solid. Yes, Rune has all kinds of potential to be the real deal, or a "cautionary tale," but there is also somewhere in between. I do still feel he'll find his way to making something interesting of his talent. We'll see who far that goes, down the road.

You sort of answered the first by what you said in the last...Rune has a wider range of outcomes, in my opinion. And yes, there's in-between...Stefanos Tsitsipas? We like to pick on the Greek, but he's won some big titles and has a more accomplished career than lots of very good players. He's sort of in the Mecir/Davydenko realm of the better Slamless players. And of course, Stefanos--at 26--still has time.

I'm not giving up on Rune, and as I said, I think he's got more upside than Fils. But his mental approach is worrisome - and that can either be like a switch that is flicked with a come-to-Jesus moment, or it can never be solved. It is harder to assess than, say, a weak second serve or backhand that has a more logical, clearcut fix.

And perhaps Rune's issue is directly related to his early success - that Paris win of a couple years ago. One could imagine an alternate timeline in which he had not won Paris, and continued to focus on improving his game, bit by bit, rather than thinking what he probably thought: "now I'm big-time!"

It is sort of like ripening fruit - if you take them off the vine too early, they don't ripen as fully as they might have. Or is that bread? (both?)

 

[Fiero425]

You sort of answered the first by what you said in the last...Rune has a wider range of outcomes, in my opinion. And yes, there's in-between...Stefanos Tsitsipas? We like to pick on the Greek, but he's won some big titles and has a more accomplished career than lots of very good players. He's sort of in the Mecir/Davydenko realm of the better Slamless players. And of course, Stefanos--at 26--still has time.

I'm not giving up on Rune, and as I said, I think he's got more upside than Fils. But his mental approach is worrisome - and that can either be like a switch that is flicked with a come-to-Jesus moment, or it can never be solved. It is harder to assess than, say, a weak second serve or backhand that has a more logical, clearcut fix.

And perhaps Rune's issue is directly related to his early success - that Paris win of a couple years ago. One could imagine an alternate timeline in which he had not won Paris, and continued to focus on improving his game, bit by bit, rather than thinking what he probably thought: "now I'm big-time!"

It is sort of like ripening fruit - if you take them off the vine too early, they don't ripen as fully as they might have. Or is that bread? (both?)

Rune's a child! Who TF gives up on a child; well, other than me? He's part of the future of the Men's Tour! Like Khachanov, his biggest notoriety is defeating Novak in the Paris Masters' final in 2022! Even w/o a major, he's still identified & grouped w/ the current stars of the game, Djokovic, Sinner, Alcaraz, Zverev, Medvedev, & Tsitsipas (who's dropping like a stone)! I love Khachanov's game, but I'm ready to give up on him! All that talent & his biggest accomplishment was stopping that run of Novak in 2018 in Bercy final!

 

[Moxie]

You sort of answered the first by what you said in the last...Rune has a wider range of outcomes, in my opinion. And yes, there's in-between...Stefanos Tsitsipas? We like to pick on the Greek, but he's won some big titles and has a more accomplished career than lots of very good players. He's sort of in the Mecir/Davydenko realm of the better Slamless players. And of course, Stefanos--at 26--still has time.

I'm not giving up on Rune, and as I said, I think he's got more upside than Fils. But his mental approach is worrisome - and that can either be like a switch that is flicked with a come-to-Jesus moment, or it can never be solved. It is harder to assess than, say, a weak second serve or backhand that has a more logical, clearcut fix.

And perhaps Rune's issue is directly related to his early success - that Paris win of a couple years ago. One could imagine an alternate timeline in which he had not won Paris, and continued to focus on improving his game, bit by bit, rather than thinking what he probably thought: "now I'm big-time!"

It is sort of like ripening fruit - if you take them off the vine too early, they don't ripen as fully as they might have. Or is that bread? (both?)

So, let's say we agree then, that it's too soon to decide what's to become of Rune. And I think it's too soon to decide about Fils, as well.

Can we really say that winning big early can spoil the fruit? It doesn't for all. That didn't happen to Alcaraz. And NOT winning earlier didn't seem to help Felix. Early talent is one thing. Temperament, character and guidance are another. Except with a very few, it takes time before we know. And even then, it takes to the end of their careers to tell it all.

 

[tented]

 

[mrzz]

Zverev calmly wins an uninspired first set. I heard the commentators say the first four games, which I did not see, where good. Not that easy to believe, but ok.

 

[mrzz]

Humbert implodes in a game he was leading 40-0 to be broken a second time in the second. Game over.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Zverev just thoroughly molested the Frenchman today. Maybe they can give him the French flowers to make him feel better. I guess Zverev is not going to be a big contender at slams going forward.

 

[El Dude]

Zverev just thoroughly molested the Frenchman today. Maybe they can give him the French flowers to make him feel better. I guess Zverev is not going to be a big contender at slams going forward.

Zverev reached the "10 Big Title Club": 2 Tour Finals, 1 Olympics Gold, 7 Masters. Most big titles without a Slam:

10 Zverev
6 Rios
4 Okker, Mecir, A Medvedev, Davydenko, Tsitsipas
3 Gottfried, Solomon, Clerc, Chesnokov, Corretja, Enqvist, Nalbandian

So he's sort of in his own category. Of course the difference between him and all those other guys (except Tsitsipas) is he's just playing and 27 years old, so he has time. But the clock is ticking.

It would take a bit of research to figure out how the most non-Slam big titles before winning their first Slam. But a couple of note: Ivan Lendl won 7 other big titles before winning his first Slam at age 24. Andy Murray won 9 other big titles before winning his first Slam at age 25. Pretty sure no one else is close to that many big titles before eventually winning a Slam (Goran Ivanisevic only won three before his GS win).

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

How Ironic!
Boris Becker was the first champion in Bercy in 1986
Zverev, second German to win Bercy 2024, is the last, before it moves in 2025 to bigger premises at the La Defense Arena

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I decided to watch the final between Zverev and Humbert, meaning I had to get up at 1.00am my time,
I went back to bed after the 1st set,
Humbert plays a High Risk game, so he has to be 'on' to make it work, maybe tiredness played a part, could not find his game that brought him to the final
Zverev played well all tournament and deserved his win

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

El Dude,
Gil Gross made some interesting stats regarding Tsitsipas, 4th straight year of win rate decline, I wont post them on the this post, save them for another day/ or post.

 

[Moxie]

I decided to watch the final between Zverev and Humbert, meaning I had to get up at 1.00am my time,
I went back to bed after the 1st set,
Humbert plays a High Risk game, so he has to be 'on' to make it work, maybe tiredness played a part, could not find his game that brought him to the final
Zverev played well all tournament and deserved his win

You were right to go back to bed. Frankly, I was going to be surprised if Humbert was able to keep up his level, and Zverev is playing at the top of his. To his credit. He's the man to beat, at the moment. Interesting, with the YEC coming up.

 

[Fiero425]

You were right to go back to bed. Frankly, I was going to be surprised if Humbert was able to keep up his level, and Zverev is playing at the top of his. To his credit. He's the man to beat, at the moment. Interesting, with the YEC coming up.

Who would have thought Sascha would be "the Nastase" of his era? Not quite #1, but has multiple YEC's! AZ has 2 already; Nastase w/ 4 IIRC!

 

[El Dude]

Who would have thought Sascha would be "the Nastase" of his era? Not quite #1, but has multiple YEC's! AZ has 2 already; Nastase w/ 4 IIRC!

Nastase was the legit best player on tour in 1972 and '73 and a top 10 guy for most of the 70s. As you (should) know, Slams weren't as heavily emphasized back then, and players also racked up a lot of very minor titles - even some with just 4 players, and one that was just 2! Actually, that happened to involved Ilie - he beat Jimmy Connors in four sets in Las Vegas in 1977.

Remember the Pepsi Grand Slam or the World Invitational Tennis Classic? Both featured just 4 players and 2 rounds for a lot of years, but also almost only the very top players. Tennis was far less standardized back then, which in some way made it more interesting. Today most ATP 250s are pretty much the same - usually one or two top 10 guys, another couple top 20 guys, and mostly journeymen. But back then you'd have all sorts of tournaments, from KO4s with the four best players to my favorite anomaly: the 1971 Tennis Champion Classic in which Rod Laver had to win 13 best-of-five matches against other top guys...sort of like a double Slam event!

As for Nastase, 1972-73 were interesting years, because Laver and Rosewall were fading and Connors/Borg hadn't reached their prime yet. So you had guys like Nastase, Smith, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker, Orantes, Kodes, etc as the top guys, with Laver and Rosewall still in the top 10ish mix and Connors starting to make some noise. Or according to Ultimate Tennis Statistics:

1972: 1. Nastase, 2. Smith, 3. Ashe, 4. Orantes, 5. Laver
1973: 1. Nastase, 2. Newcombe, 3. Connors, 4. Okker, 5. Smith

In a way, it wasn't that different than the Kuerten/Hewitt/Roddick four-year span at #1 (2000-03) -- a transitional period between two eras of greats, but still some very good years (and Nastase was overall more dominant than those three at their respective bests).

All that said, Zverev is a very unique player, in terms of historical records. As I said, he's won 10 big titles but no Slams, and the next Slamless guy won just 6 big titles. Or conversely, he's won more big titles than all but 16 players - including guys like Courier, Muster and Kuerten (9 each); Ashe, Vilas, Chang, and Medvedev (8 each), Smith and Safin (7 each). Two more and he'll be tied with Nastase and Newcombe (though Newk's best year was before the Open Era in 1967, and he probably won another 5-10 big title equivalents in the amateur era).

Zverev has a chance of tying or surpassing the big title totals of guys like Edberg (14) and Wilander (15), though I don't see him getting to Andy Murray's 20. It is really hard to imagine a guy with 10+ big titles not winning at least one Slam, but with Sascha you just never know. I still suspect he'll "do a Cilic" at one point.