[POLL] Stich vs Zverev

Stich vs Zverev?

  • Stich

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • Zverev

    Votes: 6 14.6%
  • They are equivalent

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • Now Stich, certainly Zverev at the end of his career

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Total voters
    41

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Best ranking
Stich= 2nd
Zverev= 2nd

Best year-end ranking
Stich= 2nd
Zverev= 2nd

Titles
Stich= 18
Zverev= 23

Lost finals
Stich= 13
Zverev= 13

Slam
Stich= 1
Zverev= 0

Slam finals
Stich= 3
Zverev= 2

Big title
Stich= 4*
Zverev= 10

ATP Finals
Stich= 1
Zverev= 2

Olympic singles gold
Stich= 0
Zverev= 1

Masters 1000
Stich= 2
Zverev = 7

500
Stich= 3
Zverev= 5

250
Stich= 10
Zverev= 8

Titles distributed on surfaces

Hard

Stich= 4
Zverev= 15

Clay
Stich= 3
Zverev= 8

Grass
Stich= 4
Zverev= 0

Synthetic
Stich= 7
Zverev= 0

Career winning percentage
Stich= 68.63%
Zverev= 70.04%

Wins vs top 10
Stich= 39
Zverev= 54

Wins vs top 5
Stich= 22
Zverev= 26



*Stich won the Grand Slam Cup in 1992 which I don't know if it can be counted among the big titles.
 

buscemi

Legend
Easily Stich. The Wimbledon title alone, by beating peak Courier/Edberg/Becker puts him ahead. And then you have Stich winning a Masters Series title on clay and making the French Open final on clay (beating peak Muster along the way) vs. Zverev not even making the Wimbledon QF in this grass era, Stich having a winning record vs. Sampras, and Stich's Wimbledon doubles title/Olympic doubles gold, etc., etc.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Easily Stich. The Wimbledon title alone, by beating peak Courier/Edberg/Becker puts him ahead. And then you have Stich winning a Masters Series title on clay and making the French Open final on clay (beating peak Muster along the way) vs. Zverev not even making the Wimbledon QF in this grass era, Stich having a winning record vs. Sampras, and Stich's Wimbledon doubles title/Olympic doubles gold, etc., etc.
Since when do only the performance in a single tournament or the completeness on the various surfaces count in a comparison?

These in the paraone are points in favor of Stich but there are many others in favor of Zverev, such as consistency at high levels, a significantly greater number of big titles won, etc.
Speaking of consistency, some time ago I heard a statistic where it was said that Zverev in 2024 managed to reach at least the round of 16 in each of the 9 masters 1000, something that for example Federer never managed, while Djokovic and Nadal they both only succeeded in 2009.

No, at the end of his career Zverev will unquestionably be a player placed on a higher step than Stich on a historical level, even now at just 27 years old the comparison between the two careers is absolutely balanced.

PS
Doubles has nothing to do with it, here we're talking exclusively about ability/career in singles.
 

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
Easily Stich. The Wimbledon title alone, by beating peak Courier/Edberg/Becker puts him ahead. And then you have Stich winning a Masters Series title on clay and making the French Open final on clay (beating peak Muster along the way) vs. Zverev not even making the Wimbledon QF in this grass era, Stich having a winning record vs. Sampras, and Stich's Wimbledon doubles title/Olympic doubles gold, etc., etc.
Perfect cherrypicking.
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Legend
Since when do only the performance in a single tournament or the completeness on the various surfaces count in a comparison?

These in the paraone are points in favor of Stich but there are many others in favor of Zverev, such as consistency at high levels, a significantly greater number of big titles won, etc.
Speaking of consistency, some time ago I heard a statistic where it was said that Zverev in 2024 managed to reach at least the round of 16 in each of the 9 masters 1000, something that for example Federer never managed, while Djokovic and Nadal they both only succeeded in 2009.

No, at the end of his career Zverev will unquestionably be a player placed on a higher step than Stich on a historical level, even now at just 27 years old the comparison between the two careers is absolutely balanced.

PS
Doubles has nothing to do with it, here we're talking exclusively about ability/career in singles.
Most people rightfully believe that a player without a Major needs a pretty big advantage in the rest of their career to overcome the gap created by another player winning a Major. And Stich didn't just win a Major, but what was clearly the biggest Major of his time -- Wimbledon -- by beating the two best players at that tournament from 1985-1990 back-to-back in the SF/F with the loss of only one set.

Then, you add to that the surface versatility. In an era of surface homogenization, Zverev hasn't managed a single Wimbledon QF or grass title. OTOH, in an era with stark surface differences, while Stich was better on faster surfaces, Stich won a Masters Series title on clay, made another clay Masters Series final, won a 500 level clay event, and made the French Open final, beating Muster along the way. Oh, and he led Germany to the Davis Cup in a clay final in 1993 (with Marc-Kevin Goellner as Germany's #2 singles player) by winning both his singles matches and his doubles matches in BO5 set matches.

And that last part about BO5 matches matters in this comparison. Stich won (1) Wimbledon 1991 with 7 BO5 wins; (2) the Grand Slam Cup by beating Sampras/Chang in BO5 SF/F; (3) WTF by beating peak Sampras in a BO5 final; (3) the German Open in a BO5 final over Chesnokov; (4) Stuttgart Indoor in a BO5 final over Krajicek; (5) Antwerp with a BO5 final over Ivanisevic; (6) Stockholm with a BO5 final over Ivanisevic; (7) Basel with a BO5 final over Edberg; and (8) Stuttgart outdoor with a BO5 final over Mancini.

That's 8 huge BO5 finals won by Stich, plus those big BO5 wins in the Davis Cup finals. OTOH, we all know Zverev's results in BO5 matches on the business ends of tournaments.
 

buscemi

Legend
Perfect cherrypicking.
I would say it's the opposite of cherrypicking. Stich was an excellent all around player who, in an era of big surface differences, did great things on all four surfaces, in singles and doubles, in individual and team play (Davis Cup), and in both the BO3 and BO5 formats.

Meanwhile, in an era of surface homogenization, Zverev hasn't managed a single Wimbledon QF or grass title, hasn't done much in doubles, hasn't done much in team play, and constantly falls short in BO5 matches at the business ends of Majors.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Most people rightfully believe that a player without a Major needs a pretty big advantage in the rest of their career to overcome the gap created by another player winning a Major. And Stich didn't just win a Major, but what was clearly the biggest Major of his time -- Wimbledon -- by beating the two best players at that tournament from 1985-1990 back-to-back in the SF/F with the loss of only one set.

Then, you add to that the surface versatility. In an era of surface homogenization, Zverev hasn't managed a single Wimbledon QF or grass title. OTOH, in an era with stark surface differences, while Stich was better on faster surfaces, Stich won a Masters Series title on clay, made another clay Masters Series final, won a 500 level clay event, and made the French Open final, beating Muster along the way. Oh, and he led Germany to the Davis Cup in a clay final in 1993 (with Marc-Kevin Goellner as Germany's #2 singles player) by winning both his singles matches and his doubles matches in BO5 set matches.

And that last part about BO5 matches matters in this comparison. Stich won (1) Wimbledon 1991 with 7 BO5 wins; (2) the Grand Slam Cup by beating Sampras/Chang in BO5 SF/F; (3) WTF by beating peak Sampras in a BO5 final; (3) the German Open in a BO5 final over Chesnokov; (4) Stuttgart Indoor in a BO5 final over Krajicek; (5) Antwerp with a BO5 final over Ivanisevic; (6) Stockholm with a BO5 final over Ivanisevic; (7) Basel with a BO5 final over Edberg; and (8) Stuttgart outdoor with a BO5 final over Mancini.

That's 8 huge BO5 finals won by Stich, plus those big BO5 wins in the Davis Cup finals. OTOH, we all know Zverev's results in BO5 matches on the business ends of tournaments.
And I don't agree with the initial premise.
If Cecchinato had won that edition of Roland Garros in 2018, beating Djokovic, Thiem and Nadal in sequence, how can one think that his career should be put on the same level as that of Zverev based only on two weeks of career at high levels against 7/8 years remains a mystery.

Then BO5 is clear that they are Zverev's Achilles heel and in the comparison they constitute a point in favor of Stich, but there are not only BO5s in tennis.
Zverev won Olympic gold during his career by defeating Djokovic who was aiming to equal Graf in 1988.
He won one edition of the Finals by beating Federer and Djokovic in sequence, and in the other he won he also beat Djokovic and probably the best Medvedev of his career.
He currently rides a favorable record of 10-7 against Sinneraz.
I repeat, Zverev also has arguments in his favor in the comparison, always keeping in mind that the principle is unequal, given that we are comparing a player who has already ended his career for some time with one who is probably still halfway through his career. his path.
When and if Zverev wins a slam this comparison will become one-way pro Zverev.
 

buscemi

Legend
And I don't agree with the initial premise.
If Cecchinato had won that edition of Roland Garros in 2018, beating Djokovic, Thiem and Nadal in sequence, how can one think that his career should be put on the same level as that of Zverev based only on two weeks of career at high levels against 7/8 years remains a mystery.

Then BO5 is clear that they are Zverev's Achilles heel and in the comparison they constitute a point in favor of Stich, but there are not only B05s in tennis.
Zverev won Olympic gold during his career by defeating Djokovic who was aiming to equal Graf in 1988.
He won one edition of the Finals by beating Federer and Djokovic in sequence, and in the other he won he also beat Djokovic and probably the best Medvedev of his career.
He currently rides a favorable record of 10-7 against Sinneraz.
I repeat, Zverev also has arguments in his favor in the comparison, always keeping in mind that the principle is unequal, given that we are comparing a player who has already ended his career for some time with one who is probably still halfway through his career. his path.
When and if Zverev wins a slam this comparison will become one-way pro Zverev.
The initial premise was that "Most people rightfully believe that a player without a Major needs a pretty big advantage in the rest of their career to overcome the gap created by another player winning a Major." Clearly, Zverev would have a pretty big "rest of career" advantage over a hypothetical Cecchinato who won the 2018 French Open, so that wouldn't cut against my premise.

OTOH, as you note in your own numbers, both Stich and Zverev reached world #2. Zverev has 2 WTFs while Stich has WTF and the Grand Slam Cup, with BO5 wins over Sampras on the way to both wins. Zverev has a current winning record againt Sinneraz but losing records against the Big 3 while Stich had winning records against Sampras and Edberg, but losing records against Agassi and Becker. Etc., etc.

To your point, beyond Stich's Wimbledon title, Stich has some arguments in his favor over Zverev while Zverev has some arguments in his favor over Stich. But that's my point. It's a close call outside Stich's Wimbledon win, not the pretty big advantage Zverev would need to overcome that trump card.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
The initial premise was that "Most people rightfully believe that a player without a Major needs a pretty big advantage in the rest of their career to overcome the gap created by another player winning a Major." Clearly, Zverev would have a pretty big "rest of career" advantage over a hypothetical Cecchinato who won the 2018 French Open, so that wouldn't cut against my premise.

OTOH, as you note in your own numbers, both Stich and Zverev reached world #2. Zverev has 2 WTFs while Stich has WTF and the Grand Slam Cup, with BO5 wins over Sampras on the way to both wins. Zverev has a current winning record againt Sinneraz but losing records against the Big 3 while Stich had winning records against Sampras and Edberg, but losing records against Agassi and Becker. Etc., etc.

To your point, beyond Stich's Wimbledon title, Stich has some arguments in his favor over Zverev while Zverev has some arguments in his favor over Stich. But that's my point. It's a close call outside Stich's Wimbledon win, not the pretty big advantage Zverev would need to overcome that trump card.
Zverev also has 10 big titles in his favor compared to Stich's 4/5, we are talking about double the difference, a blunder.

I repeat, at the moment I see a balanced comparison and there may still be preference for Stich, but as we said earlier, when Zverev retires I don't have the slightest doubt that he will be placed on a higher level than Stich on a historical level.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
I would say that's entirely balanced out by Stich winning biggish titles with BO5 final over the likes of Edberg, Krajicek, and Ivanisevic.
No, it can be offset by Stich having a slam against Zverev's zero.
Here too we return to the question already addressed in the previous topic on the Davis Cup.
The fact that at the time some finals outside of slams were played BO5 cannot be considered a point in favor in a comparison where the counterpart is playing in an era where best of 5 sets matches are only played in slams, I mean it is not It's Zverev's fault if this is the new format and that like everyone else he had to adapt.

The facts say that if in the slams Stich leads 1-0, in the ATP Finals we are 2-1 Zverev, 1-0 in favor of Zverev in the Olympic singles gold medals, and 7-2 again in favor of Zverev in the masters 1000 category tournaments.

I would also add, as can be seen from the data posted in my preview comment, that Zverev, despite always presumably being halfway through his journey, boasts many more victories against players ranked in the top 10, and a few more victories even against the top 5.
The difference for Zverev outside the slam context is truly abysmal.
 

buscemi

Legend
The fact that at the time some finals outside of slams were played BO5 cannot be considered a point in favor in a comparison where the counterpart is playing in an era where best of 5 sets matches are only played in slams, I mean it is not It's Zverev's fault if this is the new format and that like everyone else he had to adapt.
For me, it's absolutely pertinent. You're presenting a gap between Stich and Zverev in "big titles." A big part of the gap consists of Zverev's "big" wins at Masters Series events where he won BO3 finals against (1) Berrettini (Madrid 2021); (2) Rublev (Cincinnati 2021); (3) Jarry (Rome 2024); and (4) Humberg (Bercy 2024).

Meanwhile, Stich had wins at tournaments with BO5 finals against the likes of (1) Mancini (Stuttgart Outdoor/clay 1991); (2) Krajieck (Stuttgart 1993); (3) Edberg (Basel 1993); (4) Ivanisevic (Antwerp 1996).

In your statistical breakdown, it's a binary. Zverev's 4 wins above count as "big" wins while Stich's 4 wins above don't count as "big" wins. But I would wager that most people would classify those 4 wins by Stich as more impressive than those 4 wins by Zverev.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
For me, it's absolutely pertinent. You're presenting a gap between Stich and Zverev in "big titles." A big part of the gap consists of Zverev's "big" wins at Masters Series events where he won BO3 finals against (1) Berrettini (Madrid 2021); (2) Rublev (Cincinnati 2021); (3) Jarry (Rome 2024); and (4) Humberg (Bercy 2024).

Meanwhile, Stich had wins at tournaments with BO5 finals against the likes of (1) Mancini (Stuttgart Outdoor/clay 1991); (2) Krajieck (Stuttgart 1993); (3) Edberg (Basel 1993); (4) Ivanisevic (Antwerp 1996).

In your statistical breakdown, it's a binary. Zverev's 4 wins above count as "big" wins while Stich's 4 wins above don't count as "big" wins. But I would wager that most people would classify those 4 wins by Stich as more impressive than those 4 wins by Zverev.
For example, in Madrid 2021, Zverev beat Nadal before the final.
The Masters 1000, with rare exceptions, are played by all the best players, so winning 7 like he did has great relevance, if then, like at the last Bercy, Alcaraz who was in theory his most accredited opponent gets eliminated by Humbert Is it Zverev's fault here too?
As is the fact that they have abolished BO5 finals outside of slams for over 15 years?

10 big titles vs 4/5 is a significant difference, as is the fact that at just 27 years old Zverev boasts 15 more wins than Stich against players ranked top 10, also 54 vs 39 against players ranked top 10 like are you deceiving him?

I repeat and repeat, outside of the slam context Zverev is clearly ahead of Stich.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
For me, it's absolutely pertinent. You're presenting a gap between Stich and Zverev in "big titles." A big part of the gap consists of Zverev's "big" wins at Masters Series events where he won BO3 finals against (1) Berrettini (Madrid 2021); (2) Rublev (Cincinnati 2021); (3) Jarry (Rome 2024); and (4) Humberg (Bercy 2024).

Meanwhile, Stich had wins at tournaments with BO5 finals against the likes of (1) Mancini (Stuttgart Outdoor/clay 1991); (2) Krajieck (Stuttgart 1993); (3) Edberg (Basel 1993); (4) Ivanisevic (Antwerp 1996).

In your statistical breakdown, it's a binary. Zverev's 4 wins above count as "big" wins while Stich's 4 wins above don't count as "big" wins. But I would wager that most people would classify those 4 wins by Stich as more impressive than those 4 wins by Zverev.
When he beat Ivanisevic and Krajieck in those two finals they were number 9 and number 13 in the world respectively, but what are we talking about?

If Humbert were to become a multiple slam champion in the next few years, would the Bercy 2024 final be reevaluated in your eyes?
Does the status matter more or the actual value of when those victories happened?
Krajieck in the Stuttgart 1993 final, are you really sure he could be considered a superior type of opponent to Berrettini 2021 in the Madrid 2021?
 

buscemi

Legend
For example, in Madrid 2021, Zverev beat Nadal before the final.
The Masters 1000, with rare exceptions, are played by all the best players, so winning 7 like he did has great relevance, if then, like at the last Bercy, Alcaraz who was in theory his most accredited opponent gets eliminated by Humbert Is it Zverev's fault here too?
As is the fact that they have abolished BO5 finals outside of slams for over 15 years?

10 big titles vs 4/5 is a significant difference, as is the fact that at just 27 years old Zverev boasts 15 more wins than Stich against players ranked top 10, also 54 vs 39 against players ranked top 10 like are you deceiving him?

I repeat and repeat, outside of the slam context Zverev is clearly ahead of Stich.
And at Antwerp on carpet in 1996, Stich beat Krajicek and Medvedev before winning the BO5 final against Ivanisevic (who in the SF beat Becker on the heels of his AO title in a year where Becker was a god on carpet).

I would very much dispute Zverev being ahead of Stich outside of the Slam context. Stich was much more versatile across surfaces than Zverev, despite there being more surfaces in Stich's era and more diversity across surfaces. Stich's WTF + Grand Slam Cup wins were more impressive than Zverev's 2 WTF titles. Stich leading Germany to the Davis Cup > Zverev's Olympic title. And any gap in "big" titles is erased by the number of big BO5 finals Stich won vs. Zverev being bad in big BO5 matches.

Of course, you disagree, and that's fine, but there's certainly not some huge gap between the two outside of Majors to make up for Stich's advantage by winning Wimbledon.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
And at Antwerp on carpet in 1996, Stich beat Krajicek and Medvedev before winning the BO5 final against Ivanisevic (who in the SF beat Becker on the heels of his AO title in a year where Becker was a god on carpet).

I would very much dispute Zverev being ahead of Stich outside of the Slam context. Stich was much more versatile across surfaces than Zverev, despite there being more surfaces in Stich's era and more diversity across surfaces. Stich's WTF + Grand Slam Cup wins were more impressive than Zverev's 2 WTF titles. Stich leading Germany to the Davis Cup > Zverev's Olympic title. And any gap in "big" titles is erased by the number of big BO5 finals Stich won vs. Zverev being bad in big BO5 matches.

Of course, you disagree, and that's fine, but there's certainly not some huge gap between the two outside of Majors to make up for Stich's advantage by winning Wimbledon.
But these are your opinions and they remain so.
You leverage BO5s while deliberately ignoring that there were many more opportunities to play BO5 matches at the time.
It can't be Zverev's fault if the finals in the masters 1000 or in the ATP Finals themselves are now played BO3, do you understand?

Just as giving more value to a team success like the Davis Cup than to an Olympic success in singles, this is still an opinion but a rather crazy one.

You tell me that Stich's WTF victory is more impressive than Zverev's two path in hand, how it can be more impressive than beating two GOAT candidates between semi-final and final like Zverev did in 2018 remains a mystery.

The other hilarious thing, which here too I see you purposely ignoring exactly like the topic of victories against players ranked top 10, is that on some victories obtained against players like Krajieck and Ivanisevic you leverage their post-career status ignoring their ranking in those victories.
Too simplistic to say they beat player x in that final, it also reports their ranking level to make a fair comparison.
As well as based on the current status of the various Rublevs or Berrettinis who perhaps when they were beaten by Zverev in those finals had a higher ranking situation than that of the various Mancini, Krajieck and Ivanisevic.

I repeat, let's see if this time you will answer me on the question, if Humbert will have won some slam in a few years in your eyes will you re-evaluate the Bercy 2024 final, or rather, do you judge the difficulty coefficient based on the status or actual value of the moment?
Because if you judge him based on his status then it is useless to continue the debate, given that the opponents beaten by Stich have all finished their careers while those against whom Zverev competes are all still active, ergo, you like to win easily by analyzing everything with extreme superficiality.

That said, whichever way you look at it, 10 big titles vs 4/5 and 54 wins vs 39 with players ranked top 10 tilt the scales clearly in Zverev's favour.
The only thing that makes up for Stich is the slam context, the most important.

Even the question of greater versatility leaves the time to be found if the results are always in hand. Zverev was superior on hard and also on clay, therefore 2 surfaces of the 3 on which the current players are measured.
 

buscemi

Legend
Just as giving more value to a team success like the Davis Cup than to an Olympic success in singles, this is still an opinion but a rather crazy one.

You tell me that Stich's WTF victory is more impressive than Zverev's two path in hand, how it can be more impressive than beating two GOAT candidates between semi-final and final like Zverev did in 2018 remains a mystery.
I'll focus on these two for now:

Davis Cup in 1993 had much more significance in the tennis world than the Olympics in 2020/2021. That's more fact than my opinion.

Stich's WTF title was an undefeated run, beating peak Sampras in a BO5 final in between Pete winning Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1993 and the Australian Open in 1994. Stich's Grand Slam Cup title was also undefeated, beating Edberg/Krajicek/Sampras/Chang, with the final two matches being BO5. Meanwhile, Zverev had a loss in both of his WTF wins and no BO5 matches. This is my opinion vs. fact, but I prefer Stich's titles.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I'll focus on these two for now:

Davis Cup in 1993 had much more significance in the tennis world than the Olympics in 2020/2021. That's more fact than my opinion.

Stich's WTF title was an undefeated run, beating peak Sampras in a BO5 final in between Pete winning Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1993 and the Australian Open in 1994. Stich's Grand Slam Cup title was also undefeated, beating Edberg/Krajicek/Sampras/Chang, with the final two matches being BO5. Meanwhile, Zverev had a loss in both of his WTF wins and no BO5 matches. This is my opinion vs. fact, but I prefer Stich's titles.
It's an opinion
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Zverev also has 10 big titles in his favor compared to Stich's 4/5, we are talking about double the difference, a blunder.
Masters events (which are the sole factor in that difference) between the 90’s and now aren’t directly comparable because they mattered less to players back then and most of them were Bo5 in finals so there wasn’t really an obligation to play as many as possible. I think that change only really took place in the mid-to-late 2000’s as the tour became standardized.

Any argument between players of such different eras that rests on big title gaps has to acknowledge this inherent problem with only stacking title counts.

Other problems with these types of cross-era comparisons include the increased importance of the Davis Cup in those days, the decreased importance of the Olympics in those days, the surface diversity, the existence of the Grand Slam Cup, YEC being on carpet (prime Sampras on carpet is probably more dangerous than post-peak Djokovic and Federer on indoor hard), etc. Your analysis needs to be more holistic if you want to reconcile these differences between two obviously different eras, which is what @buscemi is kinda getting at.

The entire concept of Big Titles wasn’t even something that players thought was important until the 2000’s at least, if not even later. The Slams and YEC were even greater determinants of a player’s worth back then.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Masters events (which are the sole factor in that difference) between the 90’s and now aren’t directly comparable because they mattered less to players back then and most of them were Bo5 in finals so there wasn’t really an obligation to play as many as possible. I think that change only really took place in the mid-to-late 2000’s as the tour became standardized.

Any argument between players of such different eras that rests on big title gaps has to acknowledge this inherent problem with only stacking title counts.

Other problems with these types of cross-era comparisons include the increased importance of the Davis Cup in those days, the decreased importance of the Olympics in those days, the surface diversity, the existence of the Grand Slam Cup, YEC being on carpet (prime Sampras on carpet is probably more dangerous than post-peak Djokovic and Federer on indoor hard), etc. Your analysis needs to be more holistic if you want to reconcile these differences between two obviously different eras, which is what @buscemi is kinda getting at.

The entire concept of Big Titles wasn’t even something that players thought was important until the 2000’s at least, if not even later. The Slams and YEC were even greater determinants of a player’s worth back then.
No, to me the discussion as usual seems to me to be taking the scourge of mythologizing the past to the detriment of the present, as often happens in these comparisons with current players, and in fact I have already given the example of Krajieck taken among the references as the value of the defeated opponent compared to some opponents faced by Zverev in some of his finals.
Before Krajieck won the 1996 edition of Wimbledon with great surprise, I don't think we could define a more convincing type of opponent than a Berrettini or a Rublev 2021, these retroactive analyzes where the players' status is magnified by what they achieved afterwards, as in Krajieck's case, they are intellectually dishonest.
In that final in Stuttgart the Dutch tennis player was 13th in the ranking, in short from this point of view he was not so different from the Humbert defeated by Zverev at the last Bercy.

However, even if we wanted to weigh the various different contexts, the indisputable fact remains that Zverev has won many more tournaments overall, and above all, as I have repeatedly repeated, he has achieved many more victories against players ranked in the top 10 despite him still having several years to increase the number of victims in the top 10.

And even in the slam context, Zverev has won many more matches (101 to 78), has a higher winning percentage, (74.0% vs. 71.5%) and has reached more semifinals (8 vs. 6).

I would also add that Zverev finished a season in the top 10 7 times, while Stich only 3 seasons.

In short, Stich has one slam victory against zero, which is obviously the most probative aspect, and 3 slam finals against 2.
As for the rest, from whatever side you want to look at it, it's a no contest in favor of Zverev, who, above all in terms of consistency/continuity, literally eats ahead of Stich.
 
Imagine if 80s/90s players had the 2024 type of racquets!
That's why we can't really be sure that the big3 would dominate all other players of the past eras :unsure:
 

buscemi

Legend
No, to me the discussion as usual seems to me to be taking the scourge of mythologizing the past to the detriment of the present.
I don't think it's mythologizing Stich or downplaying Zverev. Stich has a Major where he beat three great players in the QF/SF/F. Most people think a player with a Major is better than a player without a Major unless there's a pretty big difference in the rest of their resumes. And, as we've noted here, Stich and Zverev both have pros and cons in the rest of their resumes.

We're not saying Stich with one Major is superior to Alcaraz with 4 Majors. We're saying Stich with one Major is better than Zverev with no Majors.
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Legend
In short, Stich has one slam victory against zero, which is obviously the most probative aspect, and 3 slam finals against 2.
As for the rest, from whatever side you want to look at it, it's a no contest in favor of Zverevy.
Not at all. Stich's excellence across four surfaces is a huge advantage for him vs. Zverev being quite poor on grass.

Stich won Wimbledon, Halle, and Queen's Club on grass, WTF, the Grand Slam Cup, and Stuttgart on carpet, the German Open and Stuttgart on clay, and Basel on hard courts (beating Edberg in a BO5 final).

By way of contrast in a highly homogenized era, Zverev has 0 grass titles and 0 Wimbledon QFs.

This difference in versatility is stark, without even getting into their doubles disparity.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Who's Stich?

In spite of my magnificent and extense knowledge of the history of tennis, I never heard of that man.
 
Last edited:

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
I don't think it's mythologizing Stich or downplaying Zverev. Stich has a Major where he beat three great players in the QF/SF/F. Most people think a player with a Major is better than a player without a Major unless there's a pretty big difference in the rest of their resumes. And, as we've noted here, Stich and Zverev both have pros and cons in the rest of their resumes.

We're not saying Stich with one Major is superior to Alcaraz with 4 Majors. We're saying Stich with one Major is better than Zverev with no Majors.
And yet here is the big mistake, that is to think that outside of the discussion of 1-0 in the slams won there is an equidistant comparison when Zverev has won many more tournaments, has won many more matches in the majors, has a higher percentage of victories.
He had more wins against players ranked in the top 5, and many more wins against players ranked in the top 10.
Have you finished a season in the top 10 more than twice as often?

So exactly out of the question of 1-0 slam victories for Stich, where is the balance?
As already mentioned, if Zverev also had a slam this comparison would have no sense in existing, precisely because in all aspects outside of the calculation of slams won he surpasses Stich, and he is only 27 years old...

As regards the question of mythologizing the past, just think of the Krajieck example and your parallel with the various Berrettinis and Rublevs.
Someone reading one of your many comments might think that Stich in Stuttgart in '93 beat the same Krajieck in Wimbledon '96, but unfortunately mentioning the name Krajieck ranked 13th in the world in that final is equivalent to throwing smoke and mirrors over the eyes, ergo, excessively mythologizing the past.
 

buscemi

Legend
As regards the question of mythologizing the past, just think of the Krajieck example and your parallel with the various Berrettinis and Rublevs.
Someone reading one of your many comments might think that Stich in Stuttgart in '93 beat the same Krajieck in Wimbledon '96, but unfortunately mentioning the name Krajieck ranked 13th in the world in that final is equivalent to throwing smoke and mirrors over the eyes, ergo, excessively mythologizing the past.
In 1993, Krajicek would go on to win Los Angeles, beating Sampras/Chang in the SF/F.

Look, if Berrettini or Rublev goes onto to beat a GOAT on their preferred to surface to win a Slam like Krajicek, I'll re-evaluate Zverev's Masters Series wins against them. But they are who they are in the moment.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
In 1993, Krajicek would go on to win Los Angeles, beating Sampras/Chang in the SF/F.

Look, if Berrettini or Rublev goes onto to beat a GOAT on their preferred to surface to win a Slam like Krajicek, I'll re-evaluate Zverev's Masters Series wins against them. But they are who they are in the moment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with it, when Krajieck was defeated by Stich in that Stuttgart 93 final he was 13th in the world, therefore he was positioned even lower than Rublev (7th) and Berrettini (10th) beaten by Zverev in those two finals .
This is the most reliable measure to roughly evaluate the opponent's difficulty coefficient, and not the fact that about 3 years later that same opponent would beat Sampras and then go on to win that edition of Wimbledon with great amazement.

Otherwise we can also put all the victories into the pot based on the status acquired subsequently.
Even the Australian Bolt has a victory against Sinner that his compatriot De Minaur has never achieved yet, but which Sinner are we talking about.

I don't fall for these sensationalist discussions in which to validate a concept, more emphasis is given to the status achieved by a player rather than analyzing his actual value in that historical moment.
The 1993 Krajieck could very well be considered a player along the lines of the current Humbert ranking in hand, what should the fact that he had beaten Sampras and Chang in Los Angeles here too prove?
Humbert also beat Alcaraz and Medvedev this season, so what?
Berrettini is the only player who beat Alcaraz in a match that ended in the fifth set, then?
Rublev is the only player who has beaten both Sinner and Alcaraz at least once in 2024, so what?
 

timnz

Legend
Best ranking
Stich= 2nd
Zverev= 2nd

Best year-end ranking
Stich= 2nd
Zverev= 2nd

Titles
Stich= 18
Zverev= 23

Lost finals
Stich= 13
Zverev= 13

Slam
Stich= 1
Zverev= 0

Slam finals
Stich= 3
Zverev= 2

Big title
Stich= 4*
Zverev= 10

ATP Finals
Stich= 1
Zverev= 2

Olympic singles gold
Stich= 0
Zverev= 1

Masters 1000
Stich= 2
Zverev = 7

500
Stich= 3
Zverev= 5

250
Stich= 10
Zverev= 8

Titles distributed on surfaces

Hard

Stich= 4
Zverev= 15

Clay
Stich= 3
Zverev= 8

Grass
Stich= 4
Zverev= 0

Synthetic
Stich= 7
Zverev= 0

Career winning percentage
Stich= 68.63%
Zverev= 70.04%

Wins vs top 10
Stich= 39
Zverev= 54

Wins vs top 5
Stich= 22
Zverev= 26



*Stich won the Grand Slam Cup in 1992 which I don't know if it can be counted among the big titles.
Grand slam cup ? For sure it can be considered a big title. It was the ITF season end final, with the biggest prize money purse in tennis. Best of 5 sets in the semis and the finals. Had some ultra competitive matches. Players really wanted to win this title
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Legend
It has absolutely nothing to do with it, when Krajieck was defeated by Stich in that Stuttgart 93 final he was 13th in the world, therefore he was positioned even lower than Rublev (7th) and Berrettini (10th) beaten by Zverev in those two finals.
Krajicek made the 1992 Australian Open SF and the 1993 French Open SF. At age 27, Rublev doesn't have a single Major SF to his name. They are completely different categories of players, especially in the BO5 format, which is where Stich beat Krajicek. Indeed, Krajicek's five set wins over Chang and Stich at the 1992 Australian Open at age 20 are better than any BO5 wins Zverev had until he was 25.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Krajicek made the 1992 Australian Open SF and the 1993 French Open SF. At age 27, Rublev doesn't have a single Major SF to his name. They are completely different categories of players, especially in the BO5 format, which is where Stich beat Krajicek. Indeed, Krajicek's five set wins over Chang and Stich at the 1992 Australian Open at age 20 are better than any BO5 wins Zverev had until he was 25.
Rublev closed the year in fifth place in the world rankings in 2021, Krajieck in 1993 in 15th position.
In 1993, Krajieck had already reached two slam semi-finals but they were also the only two times that he reached the round of 16 in a major, while in 2021 Rublev had already made 4 appearances in the quarter-finals of a major, with even more matches always won in major level compared to Krajieck at the end of 1993 (32 against 30).

At the end of 1993, Krajieck had concluded a season with the best ranking in tenth position, consequently no appearance at the end-of-year masters, while Rublev, in addition to the fifth place finish at the end of 2021, had also finished in eighth position in 2020, therefore two appearances at the ATP Finals .

At the end of 2021, Rublev had already won 8 tournaments, while Krajieck was still stuck at 4 at the end of 1993.

So if we contextualize the status in the various moments in which Stich and Zverev obtained those victories in the final against Krajieck and Rublev who are not part of the same category, on the contrary, Rublev could be considered a player of a higher status than that that the Dutch had in 1993.

So I see that the saga of excessively mythologizing the past to the detriment of the present continues in an incessant way.
 

buscemi

Legend
So if we contextualize the status in the various moments in which Stich and Zverev obtained those victories in the final against Krajieck and Rublev who are not part of the same category, on the contrary, Rublev could be considered a player of a higher status than that that the Dutch had in 1993.
Yeah, I don't think you'd find many people who would say Zverev faced a taller task in beating Rublev in the 2021 BO3 Cincinnati final than Stich did in beating Krajicek in the 1993 BO5 Stuttgart final. In 1993, Krajicek won Los Angeles by beating Sampras and Chang in the SF/F while in 2021 Rublev won Rotterdam by beating...checks notes...Tsitsipas and Fucsovics in the SF/F.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Yeah, I don't think you'd find many people who would say Zverev faced a taller task in beating Rublev in the 2021 BO3 Cincinnati final than Stich did in beating Krajicek in the 1993 BO5 Stuttgart final. In 1993, Krajicek won Los Angeles by beating Sampras and Chang in the SF/F while in 2021 Rublev won Rotterdam by beating...checks notes...Tsitsipas and Fucsovics in the SF/F.
You don't give up even in the face of facts.
Rublev finished the season in fifth place in 2021 and was seventh when he was beaten by Zverev in the Cincinnati final.
Krajieck finished 15th that season in 1993 and was 13th when Stich beat him in that final in Stuttgart.

I see you still mention the victories against Chang and Sampras in Los Angeles, Rublev in 2021 beat Nadal on clay in Monte Carlo and Medvedev (in the best season of his career) in the Cincinnati semifinal before abdicating against Zverev in the final.
So?

Discussion is getting really cloying, especially when you say that few would consider Rublev 2021 a more credible type of opponent than Krajieck 1993.
Surely few of those who overly mythologize the past to the detriment of the present, I'll grant you that.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Zedrot is sux, lol. And the multiple thinly veiled attempts to pump up this current field to make The Sinner look better isn’t fooling anyone.
50ec7c02-45cb-4007-8f34-51f87eac0dce_text.gif
 

buscemi

Legend
I see you still mention the victories against Chang and Sampras in Los Angeles, Rublev in 2021 beat Nadal on clay in Monte Carlo and Medvedev (in the best season of his career) in the Cincinnati semifinal before abdicating against Zverev in the final.
So?
Yes, and Krajicek also beat Agassi at the Lipton in 1993. The point is that Krajicek in 1993 had already shown the skill that would lead him to Wimbledon glory in 1996 at age 24, with the huge wins I've mentioned and the two Major SFs by age 21. Meanwhile, Rublev at age 27 has been straight setted in 8/10 Major QFs he's played and never reached a single Major SF. The talent disparity between the two is huge.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Zedrot is sux, lol. And the multiple thinly veiled attempts to pump up this current field to make The Sinner look better isn’t fooling anyone.
50ec7c02-45cb-4007-8f34-51f87eac0dce_text.gif
LOL

There is just no attempt to pump up current players to make Sinner look like a better player.
Sinner 2024 compiled one of the best single seasons in history, the numbers speak for themselves here too.
I would rather reverse the issue, that is, excessively mythologize the past to make one's favorites seem even better.
I'm convinced that if I opened a poll on who was better between Tsonga and Zverev, the Frenchman would come out on top, and that's the hilarious thing.

As usual, there is subjectivity such as the comparison between players of different eras, and objectivity established by the results.
And against Sinner 2024 the arguments are scarce, so much so that we only have to bother with the best seasons of the greatest in the yardstick.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Yes, and Krajicek also beat Agassi at the Lipton in 1993. The point is that Krajicek in 1993 had already shown the skill that would lead him to Wimbledon glory in 1996 at age 24, with the huge wins I've mentioned and the two Major SFs by age 21. Meanwhile, Rublev at age 27 has been straight setted in 8/10 Major QFs he's played and never reached a single Major SF. The talent disparity between the two is huge.
Whatever you want, you can continue to decontextualize everything, the fact remains that Rublev 2021 number 7 at the time of the final and number 5 at the end of the year, while Krajieck number 13 at the time of the final and number 15 at the end of the year.
And before facing Zverev in the final in Cincinnati, Rublev had defeated the future winner of the US Open shortly thereafter in the semi-final.

Everything else, including arguing with the benefit of hindsight, takes its time.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
LOL

There is just no attempt to pump up current players to make Sinner look like a better player.
Sinner 2024 compiled one of the best single seasons in history, the numbers speak for themselves here too.
I would rather reverse the issue, that is, excessively mythologize the past to make one's favorites seem even better.
I'm convinced that if I opened a poll on who was better between Tsonga and Zverev, the Frenchman would come out on top, and that's the hilarious thing.

As usual, there is subjectivity such as the comparison between players of different eras, and objectivity established by the results.
And against Sinner 2024 the arguments are scarce, so much so that we only have to bother with the best seasons of the greatest in the yardstick.
TLDR
 

buscemi

Legend
LOL

There is just no attempt to pump up current players to make Sinner look like a better player.
Sinner 2024 compiled one of the best single seasons in history, the numbers speak for themselves here too.
I would rather reverse the issue, that is, excessively mythologize the past to make one's favorites seem even better.
I'm convinced that if I opened a poll on who was better between Tsonga and Zverev, the Frenchman would come out on top, and that's the hilarious thing.

As usual, there is subjectivity such as the comparison between players of different eras, and objectivity established by the results.
And against Sinner 2024 the arguments are scarce, so much so that we only have to bother with the best seasons of the greatest in the yardstick.
You asked posters who is better between a player with great Major win vs. a player with no Majors. This isn't about mythologizing past players. In such a poll, almost everyone is going to pick the Major winner unless that player has little to back up their Major win, like Gaudio or Thomas Johansson. And that's clearly not the case b/c Stich reached #2 and won WTF and the Grand Slam Cup.

This would be like if I started a poll asking whether Medvedev or Davydenko is greater and then complained that posters were mythologizing current players when most posters picked Medvedev.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
You asked posters who is better between a player with great Major win vs. a player with no Majors. This isn't about mythologizing past players. In such a poll, almost everyone is going to pick the Major winner unless that player has little to back up their Major win, like Gaudio or Thomas Johansson. And that's clearly not the case b/c Stich reached #2 and won WTF and the Grand Slam Cup.

This would be like if I started a poll asking whether Medvedev or Davydenko is greater and then complained that posters were mythologizing current players when most posters picked Medvedev.
I am not disputing whether one currently prefers Stich to Zverev, but I am contesting the various, to say the least, ramshackle theses that lead to that preference.
I also said that at the moment there could be preference for Stich over Zverev, adding that at the end of Zverev's career there should be no more debate in his favor, the same as saying that if he won a slam this comparison would have no point in existing given his superiority 1-0 in slams won is out of the question.
 
Top