Objectively speaking, is Zverev the most accomplished player without a major?

Entername

Entername

Professional
I know he's one of the most hated players but in terms of achievements, he's done a lot already despite never winning a slam.

Zverev has:

- An Olympic Gold Medal he'll probably never stop talking about
- 2 WTF titles
- 5 Masters titles
- 1 Slam Final where he was points away from winning
- 19 career titles
- 69% career win rate (nice)
- Top 7 player for 5 seasons straight with three being top 4

Biggest knock is he's never even cracked top 2 and he's never even beaten top 10 player at slam but not many players can match Zed in terms of achievements among slamless players
 
Entername said:
I know he's one of the most hated players but in terms of achievements, he's done a lot already despite never winning a slam.

Zverev has:

- An Olympic Gold Medal he'll probably never stop talking about
- 2 WTF titles
- 5 Masters titles
- 1 Slam Final where he was points away from winning
- 19 career titles
- 69% career win rate (nice)
- Top 7 player for 5 seasons straight with three being top 4

Biggest knock is he's never even cracked top 2 and he's never even beaten top 10 player at slam but not many players can match Zed in terms of achievements among slamless players
Click to expand...
what about thomas berdych ?
 
i think lendl did better (sans the olympic medal that is..) but he did win davis cup
this is up til '84 when he won the FO. he won 40 titles before that.
also maybe murray... zverev is going to win a GS title eventually.
its not like any other younger players are winning GS titles either (except medved)
 
Last edited:
Statistically, yes.
In the minds of anyone with common sense, no.
 
For the millioneth time, NO. Lendl was. He had won 40 tournaments before he won his first major at the FO in 1984, had won Davis Cup, made 4 slam finals.

There is no rational argument in the slightest to claim Zverev was "the most accomplished player" to not win a major. He's not even in the realm of Lendl. 40 tournaments > 19.

End of it.
 
BeatlesFan said:
For the millioneth time, NO. Lendl was. He had won 40 tournaments before he won his first major at the FO in 1984, had won Davis Cup, made 4 slam finals.

There is no rational argument in the slightest to claim Zverev was "the most accomplished player" to not win a major. He's not even in the realm of Lendl. 40 tournaments > 19.

End of it.
Click to expand...

Is, not was.
 
BeatlesFan said:
For the millioneth time, NO. Lendl was. He had won 40 tournaments before he won his first major at the FO in 1984, had won Davis Cup, made 4 slam finals.

There is no rational argument in the slightest to claim Zverev was "the most accomplished player" to not win a major. He's not even in the realm of Lendl. 40 tournaments > 19.

End of it.
Click to expand...

This is players who never won a major, not players before they won their first major.
 
James P said:
According to UTS' "GOAT List," he's the third highest rated player of the Open Era who hasn't won a major. And he's only 24. He's behind David Ferrer and Tom Okker. This is just one attempt at quantifying it.

Source
Click to expand...
I would have thought that Berdych and Söderling are higher on that list, even Tsonga
 
BeatlesFan said:
For the millioneth time, NO. Lendl was. He had won 40 tournaments before he won his first major at the FO in 1984, had won Davis Cup, made 4 slam finals.

There is no rational argument in the slightest to claim Zverev was "the most accomplished player" to not win a major. He's not even in the realm of Lendl. 40 tournaments > 19.

End of it.
Click to expand...
Read the OP please. Geeeeze
 
James P said:
According to UTS' "GOAT List," he's the third highest rated player of the Open Era who hasn't won a major. And he's only 24. He's behind David Ferrer and Tom Okker. This is just one attempt at quantifying it.

Source
Click to expand...
Imagine Zverev rated higher than Miloslav Mecir.
 
Entername said:
I know he's one of the most hated players but in terms of achievements, he's done a lot already despite never winning a slam.

Zverev has:

- An Olympic Gold Medal he'll probably never stop talking about
- 2 WTF titles
- 5 Masters titles
- 1 Slam Final where he was points away from winning
- 19 career titles
- 69% career win rate (nice)
- Top 7 player for 5 seasons straight with three being top 4

Biggest knock is he's never even cracked top 2 and he's never even beaten top 10 player at slam but not many players can match Zed in terms of achievements among slamless players
Click to expand...

Dementieva had a few less titles, but better ranking results, better results against top players, twice as many slam finals, at least semifinals at all major events, had better doubles career.
 
Since we're talking most accomplished, that's talking achievements. Not peak level, not consistency, just the titles under the belt.

In terms of consistency, there's an argument for Ferrer, but his peak was below the Big 4 so he didn't win many other tournaments, but made plenty SFs and Fs. Berdych is similar to Ferrer, just a little more peaky. Still behind Zverev in achievements.

Off the top of my head:
Rios has him tied for M1000 equivalents. Rios did hit #1, but did not reach as many GS SFs and won 1 fewer ATP Finals, plus no Gold Medal. I'd say Zverev ahead.
Davydenko has no slam finals, less ATP Finals, fewer M1000s, no medal.
Tsonga has similar slam achievements, but no ATP Finals, no medals, and 3 fewer M1000s.
Nalbandian has similar slam achievements, 1 ATP Final, no medals, 3 fewer M1000s.

No one with no slams has more ATP Finals, so there's that. Same with gold medals. The ways people can be ahead of him are more slam finals and more M1000 equivalents.
More slam finals: Steve Denton, Kevin Curren, Miloslav Mecir, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Alex Corretja, Mark Philippoussis.
More M1000s: Can't be bothered. I'm going to go on a limb and say anyone with just more M1000s and fewer gold medals, ATP Finals, and slam achievements will be worse.

Denton looks like he took advantage of a weak AO field. Never got even close to another slam. Don't know about other tournaments, but unlikely.
Curren has 1 more slam final, but fewer semis, fewer ATP Finals, fewer gold medals, fewer tournament wins, fewer M1000s.
Pioline is better in slams, but has no ATP Finals, no medals, 1 M1000. Zverev ahead.
Martin is also better in slams, but no ATP Finals, no medals, no M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Corretja has another slam final, but 1 fewer ATP Finals, no medals, and 3 fewer M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Philippoussis has another slam final, but no ATP Finals, no medals, and 4 fewer M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Mecir has 1 more slam final, but 2 fewer ATP Finals, 2 fewer M1000s. I'd say Zverev ahead. Probably the closest?

Unless there's someone important I'm overlooking, yes. Zverev is the most accomplished player to not win a slam.

List:
  1. Zverev
  2. Rios
  3. Mecir
  4. Corretja
  5. Nalbandian
 
Last edited:
big ted said:
I think Lendl did better (sans the Olympic medal that is), but he did win Davis Cup
This is up to '84 when he won the FO. He won 40 titles before that.
Also maybe Murray... Zverev is going to win a GS title eventually.
It's not like any other younger players are winning GS titles either (except Medved)
Click to expand...

Lendl had already defeated McEnroe and Connors before winning that 1st Major at the FO! He also owned John early winning YEC over him! :giggle: :unsure::rolleyes:
 
TripleATeam said:
Since we're talking most accomplished, that's talking achievements. Not peak level, not consistency, just the titles under the belt.

In terms of consistency, there's an argument for Ferrer, but his peak was below the Big 4 so he didn't win many other tournaments, but made plenty SFs and Fs. Berdych is similar to Ferrer, just a little more peaky. Still behind Zverev in achievements.

Off the top of my head:
Rios has him tied for M1000 equivalents. Rios did hit #1, but did not reach as many GS SFs and won 1 fewer ATP Finals, plus no Gold Medal. I'd say Zverev ahead.
Davydenko has no slam finals, less ATP Finals, fewer M1000s, no medal.
Tsonga has similar slam achievements, but no ATP Finals, no medals, and 3 fewer M1000s.
Nalbandian has similar slam achievements, 1 ATP Final, no medals, 3 fewer M1000s.

No one with no slams has more ATP Finals, so there's that. Same with gold medals. The ways people can be ahead of him are more slam finals and more M1000 equivalents.
More slam finals: Steve Denton, Kevin Curren, Miloslav Mecir, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Alex Corretja, Mark Philippoussis.
More M1000s: Can't be bothered. I'm going to go on a limb and say anyone with just more M1000s and fewer gold medals, ATP Finals, and slam achievements will be worse.

Denton looks like he took advantage of a weak AO field. Never got even close to another slam. Don't know about other tournaments, but unlikely.
Curren has 1 more slam final, but fewer semis, fewer ATP Finals, fewer gold medals, fewer tournament wins, fewer M1000s.
Pioline is better in slams, but has no ATP Finals, no medals, 1 M1000. Zverev ahead.
Martin is also better in slams, but no ATP Finals, no medals, no M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Corretja has another slam final, but 1 fewer ATP Finals, no medals, and 3 fewer M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Philippoussis has another slam final, but no ATP Finals, no medals, and 4 fewer M1000s. Zverev ahead.
Mecir has 1 more slam final, but 2 fewer ATP Finals, 2 fewer M1000s. I'd say Zverev ahead. Probably the closest?

Unless there's someone important I'm overlooking, yes. Zverev is the most accomplished player to not win a slam.

List:
  1. Zverev
  2. Rios
  3. Mecir
  4. Nalbandian
  5. Corretja
Click to expand...
Rios does not belong there and Nalby isn't above Corretja IMO.
 
Entername said:
I know he's one of the most hated players but in terms of achievements, he's done a lot already despite never winning a slam.

Zverev has:

- An Olympic Gold Medal he'll probably never stop talking about
- 2 WTF titles
- 5 Masters titles
- 1 Slam Final where he was points away from winning
- 19 career titles
- 69% career win rate (nice)
- Top 7 player for 5 seasons straight with three being top 4

Biggest knock is he's never even cracked top 2 and he's never even beaten top 10 player at slam but not many players can match Zed in terms of achievements among slamless players
Click to expand...

He will certainly put himself in there.
 
Mecir actually won a tournament (1987 Miami) that was 128 players and best of 5 sets in every round, like the majors. Not even the Australian Open had that in 1987.

Miloslav Mecir at 1987 Miami
R128: Miloslav Mecir def. Cassio Motta (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
R64: Miloslav Mecir def. Jaime Yzaga (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Miloslav Mecir def. Jimmy Arias (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Miloslav Mecir def. Slobodan Zivojinovic (2-6, 6-1, 6-1, 6-4)
QF: Miloslav Mecir def. Stefan Edberg (3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Miloslav Mecir def. Yannick Noah (7-5, 5-1 ret.)
F: Miloslav Mecir def. Ivan Lendl (7-5, 6-2, 7-5)
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
Mecir actually won a tournament (1987 Miami) that was 128 players and best of 5 sets in every round, like the majors. Not even the Australian Open had that in 1987.

Miloslav Mecir at 1987 Miami
R128: Miloslav Mecir def. Cassio Motta (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
R64: Miloslav Mecir def. Jaime Yzaga (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Miloslav Mecir def. Jimmy Arias (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Miloslav Mecir def. Slobodan Zivojinovic (2-6, 6-1, 6-1, 6-4)
QF: Miloslav Mecir def. Stefan Edberg (3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Miloslav Mecir def. Yannick Noah (7-5, 5-1 ret.)
F: Miloslav Mecir def. Ivan Lendl (7-5, 6-2, 7-5)
Click to expand...


I saw that final; even tried to tape it, but Miloslav totally dominated and didn't give Ivan a chance to recover and "come back" in 5 sets! Mecir had to be "in the zone!" :giggle::notworthy:
 
aldeayeah said:
Rios does not belong there and Nalby isn't above Corretja IMO.
Click to expand...
Regarding Rios, I could agree based on level, but he has #1. If you subtract away what they both have, you get the following:
Rios: Reached #1
Zverev: 1 ATP Finals, 1 Gold Medal

Against Mecir:
Rios: 1 ATP Final, 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

In the first case, I think Zverev's resume is above Rios', but I definitely think Rios' difference is better than Mecir's. I do think his level of tennis was probably better than Rios, but we're talking about accomplishments.

As for Nalbandian, you're totally right. Stack them against each other and Corretja just has a slam final on him, where Nalbandian has nothing. My mistake.
 
BeatlesFan said:
For the millioneth time, NO. Lendl was. He had won 40 tournaments before he won his first major at the FO in 1984, had won Davis Cup, made 4 slam finals.

There is no rational argument in the slightest to claim Zverev was "the most accomplished player" to not win a major. He's not even in the realm of Lendl. 40 tournaments > 19.

End of it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and before 1984 FO he had been in the final of the Masters 5 years running (including winning 2 of them). He had also won the WCT finals in 1982. Hence, two Grand Prix season end final wins and 1 WCT season end win.
 
TripleATeam said:
Regarding Rios, I could agree based on level, but he has #1. If you subtract away what they both have, you get the following:
Rios: Reached #1
Zverev: 1 ATP Finals, 1 Gold Medal

Against Mecir:
Rios: 1 ATP Final, 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

In the first case, I think Zverev's resume is above Rios', but I definitely think Rios' difference is better than Mecir's. I do think his level of tennis was probably better than Rios, but we're talking about accomplishments.

As for Nalbandian, you're totally right. Stack them against each other and Corretja just has a slam final on him, where Nalbandian has nothing. My mistake.
Click to expand...
Mecir was in 2 Slam Finals And won Miami at a time when it was best of 5 sets every round and was regarded, by some as, the fifth slam.
 
timnz said:
Mecir was in 2 Slam Finals And won Miami at a time when it was best of 5 sets every round and was regarded, by some as, the fifth slam.
Click to expand...
Even if you consider Miami on par with ATP Finals in those days, you end up with
Rios: 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

That's hard to stratify. If you'd like to place Mecir at #2 and Rios at #3, be my guest. I won't argue. But accomplishment-wise if you only consider Miami a M1000, it's Rios that's ahead, no matter how much of a better player Mecir was.
 
TripleATeam said:
Even if you consider Miami on par with ATP Finals in those days, you end up with
Rios: 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

That's hard to stratify. If you'd like to place Mecir at #2 and Rios at #3, be my guest. I won't argue. But accomplishment-wise if you only consider Miami a M1000, it's Rios that's ahead, no matter how much of a better player Mecir was.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Rios won 5 Super 9 events, not 2.

1997 Monte Carlo
1998 Indian Wells
1998 Miami
1998 Rome
1999 Hamburg

And Mecir was in the final of the 1986 US Open and 1989 Australian Open.
 
Fiero425 said:
Lendl had already defeated McEnroe and Connors before winning that 1st Major at the FO! He also owned John early winning YEC over him! :giggle: :unsure::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

zverev has beaten the big 3 before, but not in a GS tournament.
maybe theyre both just a really late bloomers lol
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
I'm confused. Rios won 5 Super 9 events, not 2.

1997 Monte Carlo
1998 Indian Wells
1998 Miami
1998 Rome
1999 Hamburg

And Mecir was in the final of the 1986 US Open and 1989 Australian Open.
Click to expand...
Rios reached 1 slam final, Mecir reached 2 = Mecir ahead by 1.
Rios won 5 Super 9s, Mecir won 3 = Rios ahead by 2.
And so on.
 
TripleATeam said:
Even if you consider Miami on par with ATP Finals in those days, you end up with
Rios: 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

That's hard to stratify. If you'd like to place Mecir at #2 and Rios at #3, be my guest. I won't argue. But accomplishment-wise if you only consider Miami a M1000, it's Rios that's ahead, no matter how much of a better player Mecir was.
Click to expand...

It's about TIMING when it comes to Rios achieving #1 ranking! He came along when Sampras was fading and Agassi was still all at sea! It was a very brief period before Hewitt took over as #1 where the ranking changed monthly between a half dozen guys! :giggle: :-D:D:happydevil:
 
Fiero425 said:
It's about TIMING when it comes to Rios achieving #1 ranking! He came along when Sampras was fading and Agassi was still all at sea! It was a very brief period before Hewitt took over as #1 where the ranking changed monthly between a half dozen guys! :giggle: :-D:D:happydevil:
Click to expand...
Agassi was fast on his way back up at the time of the 1998 Miami final when Rios beat him.
 
Tom Okker made only 1 Major final , but won 40 titles in his career, made the SF’s at all 4 Slams, in addition to 7 Quarterfinals and in the first year of computer rankings (1973) was YE #4. Great allaround, as Okker won tourneys on grass, clay, hard courts and indoor carpet . Arthur Ashe once said that all the pros knew that for one or two weeks out of the year Okker in his zone was the absolute best player on the planet.
 
Patriots said:
Tom Okker made only 1 Major final , but won 40 titles in his career, made the SF’s at all 4 Slams, in addition to 7 Quarterfinals and in the first year of computer rankings (1973) was YE #4. Great allaround, as Okker won tourneys on grass, clay, hard courts and indoor carpet . Arthur Ashe once said that all the pros knew that for one or two weeks out of the year Okker in his zone was the absolute best player on the planet.
Click to expand...
Yes. Tom Okker is another strong contender. My late nan used to talk about him quite a bit.
 
As BeatlesFan said the answer is clearly Lendl if you consider players credentials at a point before they won a major. Looking at those who never got or still don't have one though:

Rios's actual slam results are too bad for it to be him. Only 1 time past the quarters, and that was a dissapointing blow out loss in the final to a 1 time slam winner. Big no to Rios for me, as simply didn't perform well enough in actual slams or get close enough, despite that he was quite capable.

I would rate Rios above Corretja overall as a player, but Corretja higher on "best not to win major" list simply since he was a close pretender for a long time at RG, and had many years he potentially might have won there- 97, 98, 99, 2001, 2002. Not saying he should have won any of those years, he possibly could have in any of them, so atleast winning 1 of them was good odds, but just didn't happen. Even if realistically he never stood a prayer of winning a title at any other slam (even if he wins that Sampras epic at the 96 US Open, he is never winning the title I feel confident in saying).

Nalbandian has an alright case, but not that good. At the 3 slams he realistically could have won at some point (all minus Wimbledon) he never got to a single final. His only final was at Wimbledon of all places. That makes it hard to make a stronger case for him, although if he won that US Open semi vs Roddick he had match points, he almost certainly wins that title. Even had he closed out Baghdatis he had a decent chance vs Federer in the final at the 2006 Australian Open. I would favor Federer, but it is close.

Zverev has some case, now that his slam final results are getting better. He still has only 1 slam final though. No time at #1, although that applies to most of these, and I don't think shoudl be the determining factor as I said with Rios. 5 Masters, YEC title, Olympic Gold. If he makes another slam final (losing, to stay on this list) he has a very strong case. The other thing against him though, subjectively speaking, is he has this terrible field, and he still didn't win one.

Todd Martin and Tommy Haas might have cases, but even weaker than the ones I already mentioned I am pretty sure.

Berdych might have a case, but only 1 slam final and 1 Masters title, so he would never be my pick.

Tsonga I think is better than Berdcyh, but he also has only 1 slam final and 2 Masters titles.

MeCir has some case, but I don't think enough results to be a stronger pick.

Chang would be a strong pick if he didn't win that one fluke French in 89, which turned out to be his only slam surprisingly.
 
TripleATeam said:
Since we're talking most accomplished, that's talking achievements. Not peak level, not consistency, just the titles under the belt.

In terms of consistency, there's an argument for Ferrer, but his peak was below the Big 4 so he didn't win many other tournaments, but made plenty SFs and Fs. Berdych is similar to Ferrer, just a little more peaky. Still behind Zverev in achievements.
Click to expand...

Yep. Ferrer once made the QF or better at 10 straight majors. He lost to Djoker, Nadal, Murray, Djoker, Djoker, and Nadal at 6 straight majors between 2012-2013. Strong Era.
 
TripleATeam said:
Even if you consider Miami on par with ATP Finals in those days, you end up with
Rios: 2 M1000s, reached #1
Mecir: 1 slam final

That's hard to stratify. If you'd like to place Mecir at #2 and Rios at #3, be my guest. I won't argue. But accomplishment-wise if you only consider Miami a M1000, it's Rios that's ahead, no matter how much of a better player Mecir was.
Click to expand...
I meant 2 slam finals 1986 US open and 1989 Australian open
 
Entername said:
I know he's one of the most hated players but in terms of achievements, he's done a lot already despite never winning a slam.

Zverev has:

- An Olympic Gold Medal he'll probably never stop talking about
- 2 WTF titles
- 5 Masters titles
- 1 Slam Final where he was points away from winning
- 19 career titles
- 69% career win rate (nice)
- Top 7 player for 5 seasons straight with three being top 4

Biggest knock is he's never even cracked top 2 and he's never even beaten top 10 player at slam but not many players can match Zed in terms of achievements among slamless players
Click to expand...
Never beating a top 10 player at a slam he is 25 LoL
 
Fabresque said:
This still irks me. I can almost guarantee 0 people in the world were ever talking about him being No.1 after the Aus Open.
Click to expand...
To be somewhat fair he was going to be #1 if he won the AO, with the 2000 ranking points. Of course the attention was not on him, but it’s not like he’s just made that up.
 
Kralingen said:
To be somewhat fair he was going to be #1 if he won the AO, with the 2000 ranking points. Of course the attention was not on him, but it’s not like he’s just made that up.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Zverev also said he won Masters too early in his career and that created more pressure on him?

Obviously he’s doesn’t go by the Billie Jean King refrain “Pressure is a privilege.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jamesblakefan#1
  • Poll Poll
Most Accomplished Player Never to Win a Major?
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Cenc
C
clout
Is David Ferrer the greatest player to never win a major?
2
Replies
78
Views
8K
King No1e
King No1e
H
  • Poll Poll
Who is the second best german player of the open era? Stich or Zverev?
2 3
Replies
132
Views
6K
thrust
T
H
Where does Zverev rank among the best players that never won a slam?
Replies
7
Views
837
Airspun
Airspun
Lozo1016
  • Poll Poll
Is Alexander Zverev The Greatest (Open Era) Player Without A Slam?
3 4 5
Replies
211
Views
13K
FriedlyNurse
F
Back
Top