Alex Zverev to be World #4 without a slam QF. Is this a first?

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#1
With #8 Thiem and #14 Goffin both losing today, Zverev is guaranteed to be #4 in the world, even if #19 Carreno Busta or #21 Querrey win the US Open.

Zverev hasn't made a slam QF in the past 12 months and hasn't made one in his entire career. (Yes yes, he's
young, but still, he'll be #4 without one).

His current slam record for 2017 is:
Australian Open: 3R
French Open: 1R
Wimbledon: 4R
US Open: 2R

I can't think of a recent time when a player was top 5 in the world without a slam QF, can you?

Edit: with help from @Bukmeikara we've found that at a few times in 2003, Federer held the #1 ranking without a slam QF. March 3, 2003 he was #4 but his slam results were 1R French Open, 1R Wimbledon, 4R US Open, 4R Aus Open. Federer had made slam QF's in his career at that point (two in 2001) but they weren't contributing to his ranking.
 
Last edited:
#8
With #8 Thiem and #14 Goffin both losing today, Zverev is guaranteed to be #4 in the world, even if #19 Carreno Busta or #21 Querrey win the US Open.

Zverev hasn't made a slam QF in the past 12 months and hasn't made one in his entire career. (Yes yes, he's
young, but still, he'll be #4 without one).

His current slam record for 2017 is:
Australian Open: 3R
French Open: 1R
Wimbledon: 4R
US Open: 2R

I can't think of a recent time when a player was top 5 in the world without a slam QF, can you?
Can't play for more than 2 sets. Hasn't beat a top 50 player in Bo5, yet is 4 in the world, likely gonna end 3 in the world.

We need more Bo5, not less. Expose the false dawn.
 
#10
People, dont you get tired repeating the same argument over and over again when its a obvious that this is just a freak stat! You have 30 tournaments in 2/3 format and 4 tournament in 3/5. The variation in the later one is far bigger because you have less tries. Is not Zverev the 4th best player this year?! I believe that he is even the third best and starting next year he would regulary go deep ... in both Slams and ladies. If this was 2002 you would complain the same way about Federer...

As for the original question, I believe Ljubicic won a lot of titles + 3 Masters finals back in 2006 before reaching the SF at RG, so he was ranked around number 3-4 at the time.
 
#11
With #8 Thiem and #14 Goffin both losing today, Zverev is guaranteed to be #4 in the world, even if #19 Carreno Busta or #21 Querrey win the US Open.

Zverev hasn't made a slam QF in the past 12 months and hasn't made one in his entire career. (Yes yes, he's
young, but still, he'll be #4 without one).

His current slam record for 2017 is:
Australian Open: 3R
French Open: 1R
Wimbledon: 4R
US Open: 2R

I can't think of a recent time when a player was top 5 in the world without a slam QF, can you?
Hmm. It would appear that computer rankings are not based on Slams only--in spite of the myopia on here.
 
#13
In both cases against injured players
You can only play who's on the other side of the net. He played 4 or 5 matches to make the final, then won it. Most of the players still there in the USO weren't up to doing that. Perhaps his level is neither as high as a multiple Masters champion suggests nor as weak as someone who's never made a slam 1/4 final.
 

jimjam

Professional
#17
People, dont you get tired repeating the same argument over and over again when its a obvious that this is just a freak stat! You have 30 tournaments in 2/3 format and 4 tournament in 3/5. The variation in the later one is far bigger because you have less tries.
.
Correct. It's just a sample size issue.
 

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#18
Hmm. It would appear that computer rankings are not based on Slams only--in spite of the myopia on here.
Slams make up a big portion, not everything but a large portion. And he doesn't have a single slam QF to his name which generally top 4 players always have. Usually top 4 players are expected to be consistent and have points for both Masters, smaller events and slams. Not just Masters and smaller events. The kid sucks at slams and is number 4 without a slam QF. It's embarrassing.
 
#19
Slams make up a big portion, not everything but a large portion. And he doesn't have a single slam QF to his name which generally top 4 players always have. Usually top 4 players are expected to be consistent and have points for both Masters, smaller events and slams. Not just Masters and smaller events. The kid sucks at slams and is number 4 without a slam QF. It's embarrassing.
Embarrassing for who?
 

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
People, dont you get tired repeating the same argument over and over again when its a obvious that this is just a freak stat! You have 30 tournaments in 2/3 format and 4 tournament in 3/5. The variation in the later one is far bigger because you have less tries. Is not Zverev the 4th best player this year?! I believe that he is even the third best and starting next year he would regulary go deep ... in both Slams and ladies. If this was 2002 you would complain the same way about Federer...

As for the original question, I believe Ljubicic won a lot of titles + 3 Masters finals back in 2006 before reaching the SF at RG, so he was ranked around number 3-4 at the time.
Freak stat? Well it's not really.. players like Carreno Busta, Mischa, Muller, Schwartzman, Rublev all have slam QF's this year. Other players like Tomic, Pospisil, Kubot etc have made slam QF's yet Zverev hasn't?

Yes there's only 4 slams in a year but it's very rare for a top 4 player to not have a slam QF. In fact, we're yet to get a recent answer from a player this century..

Oh and Ljubicic didn't make the top 5 until the 30th of January 2006, just after he made the 2006 Aus Open QF. So he had a slam QF by that time.
 
#21
Freak stat? Well it's not really.. players like Carreno Busta, Mischa, Muller, Schwartzman, Rublev all have slam QF's this year. Other players like Tomic, Pospisil, Kubot etc have made slam QF's yet Zverev hasn't?

Yes there's only 4 slams in a year but it's very rare for a top 4 player to not have a slam QF. In fact, we're yet to get a recent answer from a player this century..

Oh and Ljubicic didn't make the top 5 until the 30th of January 2006, just after he made the 2006 Aus Open QF. So he had a slam QF by that time.
So what if those players made a QF, are they better than Zverev because I could make you a bet that all of those combined would have less accomplisments than Zverev at the tail end of his career. 4 Slams not 40 but FOUR - in the first one he drawed Nadal and at Wimbledon he lost to Raonic in 5, he failed two times and you are ready to throw stones at him? Do you know what were Federer's results in Slams in 2002-2003, being 1-2 years older than Zverev ?! 1rd round three times, 4th round four times and one WImbledon title! Such a bad player because he could reach just one QF from 8 tries while someone like Carreno Buta mades two QF in few months.

+ all the names you mentioned, reached their first QF being ages 24-25 excluding Rublev who is a freak accident like Zverev is one in the opposite direction
 
#22
So what if those players made a QF, are they better than Zverev because I could make you a bet that all of those combined would have less accomplisments than Zverev at the tail end of his career. 4 Slams not 40 but FOUR - in the first one he drawed Nadal and at Wimbledon he lost to Raonic in 5, he failed two times and you are ready to throw stones at him? Do you know what were Federer's results in Slams in 2002-2003, being 1-2 years older than Zverev ?! 1rd round three times, 4th round four times and one WImbledon title! Such a bad player because he could reach just one QF from 8 tries while someone like Carreno Buta mades two QF in few months.

+ all the names you mentioned, reached their first QF being ages 24-25 excluding Rublev who is a freak accident like Zverev is one in the opposite direction
Masters tournaments typically have the top 56 ranked fit players as the field. The slams have those 56 plus another 72 nominally inferior players...ie they're lower ranked. The only real reason a player should succeed at Master but not slams is lack of stamina. The evidence with Zverev is mixed on that: He had 5th set fade outs against Nadal and Raonic, but his USO and FO results were 4 set losses IE he was down 2 sets to 1 and would have lost them in the BO 3 format. In terms of the US summer, he appears to have peaked too early, winning the Washington 500 and Canadian Masters several weeks before the USO. There's nothing really to say he's not good enough to succeed in the slam format.
 
#23
It's possible that Guillermo Vilas did this (yes, I know this is going back a loooong way).

He was ranked #5 at the end of 1974, without having reached a slam QF.

His first slam QF was at the FO in 1975 (he actually got all the way to the final), and he was seeded #4 in that tournament. However, Connors was missing, and he was #1 at the time, implying that Vilas was actually ranked #5 coming in to the 1975 FO.

So, I can't think of a definite case where this has happened before.
 

atp2015

Hall of Fame
#25
There is always going to be a first in something or the other. There was no internet before internet was created or no airplanes before the Wright brothers. No slam qf for a world #4, and no slam for WTA #1.
It's what it is.
 
#27
Zverev is number 4 partially because Djokovic/Wawrinka are injuried but he also won 6/7 titles, do you know when was the last time a non Big 4 player won that many titles? I would guess probably back to 2003 with Roddick. In my book this is a legit accomplisment for a top 4 ranking and he is 20. But lets throw some stones in your garden a.k.a the WTA:

1. You have a player that was THREE times two points away from becoming number 1 and she couldnt deliver.
2. You have a Slamless number 1 while holding ZERO Master titles.
3. You have a player with 9 top 10 wins in 2017 and she is ranked as number 40
4. You have a top player Wozniacki with FIVE lost finals in 2017 while failing to win a single set. In Slams she was also straight setted in 3/4.
5. You have a 37 years old Venus Williams who had a "journeyman" type of results in the past seven years and yet suddenly she is the player to reach most Grand Slam finals in 2017 and third is pending
6. Your number 4 Svitolina has 3rd round, 3rd round, R16 and QF in Slams, how is that so much better than Zverev and by the way she choked a 5-1 30-0 in the decinding set against Halep
7. Number 1 player Kerber has failed to reach a single big final in 2017 ... with ZERO top 10 wins.
8. Year end number 4 Cibulkova, for the entire 2017 season, has won more than two matches in a single event just 1/19 .. in that case she won three matches

Please tell me again how bad Zverev is ...
 
Last edited:

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
So what if those players made a QF, are they better than Zverev because I could make you a bet that all of those combined would have less accomplisments than Zverev at the tail end of his career. 4 Slams not 40 but FOUR - in the first one he drawed Nadal and at Wimbledon he lost to Raonic in 5, he failed two times and you are ready to throw stones at him? Do you know what were Federer's results in Slams in 2002-2003, being 1-2 years older than Zverev ?! 1rd round three times, 4th round four times and one WImbledon title! Such a bad player because he could reach just one QF from 8 tries while someone like Carreno Buta mades two QF in few months.
You're completely missing the point. Was Federer world number 4 when he hadn't made a slam QF? NO. But Zverev is! Oh and Federer may not have had a breakout at his early slams but he'd made a QF by his 8th slam. And Nadal had won one by his 6th slam. Zverev is at his 10th without even a slam QF.

Zverev lost to Verdasco 1R at the French and Coric at the USO. Not really great for someone who's meant to be the world number 4? Sure you can throw Fed and Raonic into the mix but not all his opponents have been that quality. The guy is yet to beat a top 50 player at a slam..

+ all the names you mentioned, reached their first QF being ages 24-25 excluding Rublev who is a freak accident like Zverev is one in the opposite direction
Tomic made his slam QF aged 19... Kyrgios (who I didn't name) also made one by his 19th birthday and then Rublev of course.
 

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#29
Zverev is number 4 partially because Djokovic/Wawrinka are injuried but he also won 6/7 titles, do you know when was the last time a non Big 4 player won that many titles? I would guess probably back to 2003 with Roddick. In my book this is a legit accomplisment for a top 4 ranking and he is 20. But lets throw some stones in your garden a.k.a the WTA:
Guess you really can't hold your own if you've got to bring up a completely different tour which had absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Nice try. Oh and i'm still yet to get an answer when the last time a player was top 4 without a slam QF. At least the top 4 WTA ladies have that :rolleyes:.

If you're going to try to discuss the WTA in this thread which is about Zverev and the ATP then i'm going to have to ignore you. Stick on topic please.
 
#30
With #8 Thiem and #14 Goffin both losing today, Zverev is guaranteed to be #4 in the world, even if #19 Carreno Busta or #21 Querrey win the US Open.

Zverev hasn't made a slam QF in the past 12 months and hasn't made one in his entire career. (Yes yes, he's
young, but still, he'll be #4 without one).

His current slam record for 2017 is:
Australian Open: 3R
French Open: 1R
Wimbledon: 4R
US Open: 2R

I can't think of a recent time when a player was top 5 in the world without a slam QF, can you?
Wonder if his fitness is a factor in B05
 
#31
Most of these are good points, but #3 (while a very interesting stat) doesn't to me suggest that the tour is weak. Rather, it suggests either that the tour is very strong or that Makarova is frighteningly inconsistent. She frequently lost to much lower-ranked players after beating a top 10. She's also bee ranked far higher in the past than she is now.

Zverev is number 4 partially because Djokovic/Wawrinka are injuried but he also won 6/7 titles, do you know when was the last time a non Big 4 player won that many titles? I would guess probably back to 2003 with Roddick. In my book this is a legit accomplisment for a top 4 ranking and he is 20. But lets throw some stones in your garden a.k.a the WTA:

1. You have a player that was THREE times two points away from becoming number 1 and she couldnt deliver.
2. You have a Slamless number 1 while holding ZERO Master titles.
3. You have a player with 9 top 10 wins in 2017 and she is ranked as number 40
4. You have a top player Wozniacki with FIVE lost finals in 2017 while failing to win a single set. In Slams she was also straight setted in 3/4.
5. You have a 37 years old Venus Williams who had a "journeyman" type of results in the past seven years and yet suddenly she is the player to reach most Grand Slam finals in 2017 and third is pending
6. Your number 4 Svitolina has 3rd round, 3rd round, R16 and QF in Slams, how is that so much better than Zverev and by the way she choked a 5-1 30-0 in the decinding set against Halep
7. Number 1 player Kerber has failed to reach a single big final in 2017 ... with ZERO top 10 wins.
8. Year end number 4 Cibulkova, for the entire 2017 season, has won more than two matches in a single event just 1/19 .. in that case she won three matches

Please tell me again how bad Zverev is ...
 
#32
You're completely missing the point. Was Federer world number 4 when he hadn't made a slam QF? NO. But Zverev is! Oh and Federer may not have had a breakout at his early slams but Nadal had won one by his 6th slam. Fed had made a QF by his 8th. Zverev is at his 10th without even a slam QF.

Zverev lost to Verdasco 1R at the French and Coric at the USO. Not really great for someone who's meant to be the world number 4? Sure you can throw Fed and Raonic into the mix but not all his opponents have been that quality. The guy is yet to beat a top 50 player at a slam..



Tomic made his slam QF aged 19... Kyrgios (who I didn't name) also made one by his 19th birthday and then Rublev of course.
Federer was number 5 without a Slam QF in 2002. Dont you think that mentioning Tomic, Kyrgios early quarterfinals somehow proves the point that this particular stat(at what age you would reach QF) is somehow irrelevant in the bigger picture? Six years later, Tomic is yet to reach another one, 3 years later Kyrgios is yet to reach top 10 or a SF.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#33
People, dont you get tired repeating the same argument over and over again when its a obvious that this is just a freak stat! You have 30 tournaments in 2/3 format and 4 tournament in 3/5. The variation in the later one is far bigger because you have less tries. Is not Zverev the 4th best player this year?! I believe that he is even the third best and starting next year he would regulary go deep ... in both Slams and ladies. If this was 2002 you would complain the same way about Federer...

As for the original question, I believe Ljubicic won a lot of titles + 3 Masters finals back in 2006 before reaching the SF at RG, so he was ranked around number 3-4 at the time.
Ljubicic had reached the QF of the 2006 AO before reaching the FO semis.
 
#34
Svitolina might end up no. 1 without ever reaching SF.

Svitolina this year: 3R, QF, 4R, 4R

Maybe these 2 players just haven't yet know how to handle pressure in Grand Slam where except you are Federer, the crowd cheering for your opponent.
 

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#35
Most of these are good points, but #3 (while a very interesting stat) doesn't to me suggest that the tour is weak. Rather, it suggests either that the tour is very strong or that Makarova is frighteningly inconsistent. She frequently lost to much lower-ranked players after beating a top 10. She's also bee ranked far higher in the past than she is now.
Please :rolleyes: the points aren't even relevant to this discussion and most of them are blatantly wrong.
Take for example Venus.

She has journeyman results in the past 7 years?
2014 she won a Premier title and made a Premier 5 final
2015 she made two slam QF's, won 3 titles including a Premier 5 title and the Elite Trophy and
2016 she made a slam SF.

If those are journeyman results then damn, yours and his definitions of a journeyman are wildly different to mine. Journeyman is someone who barely makes slam 2R's and loses in qualifying or 1R at most events.. not that.

Anyway, back on topic.
 

BGod

Hall of Fame
#36
Is it the first time? I doubt it.

Winning a couple Masters and 500s should be enough unless you have all of the Big 4 firing. Which they're not.
 
#37
Most of these are good points, but #3 (while a very interesting stat) doesn't to me suggest that the tour is weak. Rather, it suggests either that the tour is very strong or that Makarova is frighteningly inconsistent. She frequently lost to much lower-ranked players after beating a top 10. She's also bee ranked far higher in the past than she is now.
If she has that many top 10 wins and fails to capitalize after that, it means only that her overall level wasnt that high in those particular wins and that the top 10 field is weak. Its not one time or even three, she has almost 10 wins and just one decent tournament to back it up. Outside Washington she didnt reach a single QF.
 

Aussie Darcy

Talk Tennis Guru
#40
Federer was number 5 without a Slam QF in 2002. Dont you think that mentioning Tomic, Kyrgios early quarterfinals somehow proves the point that this particular stat(at what age you would reach QF) is somehow irrelevant in the bigger picture? Six years later, Tomic is yet to reach another one, 3 years later Kyrgios is yet to reach top 10 or a SF.
I apologize, you were kind of right. It wasn't 2002 but it was 2003. His ranking only got as high as number 6 in 2002 but in 2003 he got as high as number 4 (3rd of March 2003) without a slam QF to his ranking. But at that point in his career he had made slam QF's in 2001.

Proof here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/rankings-history


So we've kind of gotten our answer. Federer didn't have a slam QF to his ranking when number 4 but he had made a slam QF in his career. Still not sure when the last player to never have one though. Although someone mentioned Vilas.
 
#41
Zverev is number 4 partially because Djokovic/Wawrinka are injuried but he also won 6/7 titles, do you know when was the last time a non Big 4 player won that many titles? I would guess probably back to 2003 with Roddick. In my book this is a legit accomplisment for a top 4 ranking and he is 20. But lets throw some stones in your garden a.k.a the WTA:

1. You have a player that was THREE times two points away from becoming number 1 and she couldnt deliver.
2. You have a Slamless number 1 while holding ZERO Master titles.
3. You have a player with 9 top 10 wins in 2017 and she is ranked as number 40
4. You have a top player Wozniacki with FIVE lost finals in 2017 while failing to win a single set. In Slams she was also straight setted in 3/4.
5. You have a 37 years old Venus Williams who had a "journeyman" type of results in the past seven years and yet suddenly she is the player to reach most Grand Slam finals in 2017 and third is pending
6. Your number 4 Svitolina has 3rd round, 3rd round, R16 and QF in Slams, how is that so much better than Zverev and by the way she choked a 5-1 30-0 in the decinding set against Halep
7. Number 1 player Kerber has failed to reach a single big final in 2017 ... with ZERO top 10 wins.
8. Year end number 4 Cibulkova, for the entire 2017 season, has won more than two matches in a single event just 1/19 .. in that case she won three matches

Please tell me again how bad Zverev is ...
That we have to laugh at the WTA at all times don't mean we can't laugh at the ATP when appropriate
 
#42
Please :rolleyes: the points aren't even relevant to this discussion and most of them are blatantly wrong.
Take for example Venus.

She has journeyman results in the past 7 years?
2014 she won a Premier title and made a Premier 5 final
2015 she made two slam QF's, won 3 titles including a Premier 5 title and the Elite Trophy and
2016 she made a slam SF.

If those are journeyman results then damn, yours and his definitions of a journeyman are wildly different to mine. Journeyman is someone who barely makes slam 2R's and loses in qualifying or 1R at most events.. not that.

Anyway, back on topic.
Good point. That first clause of mine was meant to be a placeholder to get to my real point. Anyway, I agree with you. And note that in some of those years, Venus wasn't very well.
 
#48
Zverev is number 4 partially because Djokovic/Wawrinka are injuried but he also won 6/7 titles, do you know when was the last time a non Big 4 player won that many titles? I would guess probably back to 2003 with Roddick. In my book this is a legit accomplisment for a top 4 ranking and he is 20. But lets throw some stones in your garden a.k.a the WTA:

1. You have a player that was THREE times two points away from becoming number 1 and she couldnt deliver.
2. You have a Slamless number 1 while holding ZERO Master titles.
3. You have a player with 9 top 10 wins in 2017 and she is ranked as number 40
4. You have a top player Wozniacki with FIVE lost finals in 2017 while failing to win a single set. In Slams she was also straight setted in 3/4.
5. You have a 37 years old Venus Williams who had a "journeyman" type of results in the past seven years and yet suddenly she is the player to reach most Grand Slam finals in 2017 and third is pending
6. Your number 4 Svitolina has 3rd round, 3rd round, R16 and QF in Slams, how is that so much better than Zverev and by the way she choked a 5-1 30-0 in the decinding set against Halep
7. Number 1 player Kerber has failed to reach a single big final in 2017 ... with ZERO top 10 wins.
8. Year end number 4 Cibulkova, for the entire 2017 season, has won more than two matches in a single event just 1/19 .. in that case she won three matches

Please tell me again how bad Zverev is ...
Ferrer in 2012 won 7 titles, yet finished 5th. Otherwise, great post
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankDate=2012-12-17&rankRange=0-100
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/david-ferrer/f401/titles-and-finals
 
#49
It's only a matter of time before Zverev makes a slam QF. Let's not delude ourselfes. And once he does, his early slam history will beforgotten quicker than Nadal can wipe his ass.
 
Top