[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

zagor

Bionic Poster
I honestly believe Stich had ATG talent/potential. He just had big mental walkabouts, lacked focus and full dedication to the game, and was also pretty injury prone.

In some ways he was like Fed of the 90s. An all-court shotmaker with a very smooth, fluid big game.
 
I honestly believe Stich had ATG talent/potential. He just had big mental walkabouts, lacked focus and full dedication to the game, and was also pretty injury prone.

In some ways he was like Fed of the 90s. An all-court shotmaker with a very smooth, fluid big game.
He really did — everyone other than Agassi and old man Lendl absolutely hated playing him because his peak game was so very high on all surfaces, especially clay, grass, and indoor carpet, but his lows were pretty low as his game and focus could fall apart at any given time.

If he had dedicated himself to the game earlier rather than spending time on soccer, took physical fitness more seriously, he would have had an even better career.
 
Last edited:

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
He really did — everyone other than Agassi and old man Lendl absolutely hated playing him because his peak game was so very high on all surfaces, especially clay, grass, and indoor carpet, but his lows were pretty low as his game and focus could fall apart at any given time.

If he had dedicated himself to the game earlier rather than spending time on soccer, took physical fitness more seriously, he would have had an even better career.
Stich is one of the biggest "what if's" in tennis for me. With his incredible abilities he really should have been an ATG. He had all the shots, and they were all at an elite level. What a damn shame.
 
He really did — everyone other than Agassi and old man Lendl absolutely hated playing him because his peak game was so very high on all surfaces, especially clay, grass, and indoor carpet, but his lows were pretty low as his game and focus could fall apart at any given time.
so basically Stich was lucky to play in the '90s inconsistency decade when GOAT baseliners and/or passers wouldn't be regularly cooking him,,,
 

Incognito

Legend
Slams first and then other results are tiebreakers.

I would rather have Stichs career.

But Stich would rather have Zverev’s money :D
 
The statistics are compelling, and Zverev's consistent high ranking in the face of such impressive achievements by others makes his lack of Grand Slam titles quite remarkable.My old prediction of two titles seems entirely plausible given his talent.

One wonders if the pressure of expectation is a factor.

It's a fascinating case study in high-stakes performance. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis, perhaps even a biographical study someday, will illuminate the matter.

Stich and Sampras...Sampras' dominance was legendary, so a positive head-to-head record against him speaks volumes about Stich's skill and mental fortitude under pressure. A fascinating contrast in serve and volley playing styles, too.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
LOL

So even Johansson is better than Zverev.
I wonder if you really believe what you write.

Up to this date, anyone placing the loser Zverev above a majors winner is not to be believed, or perhaps their sanity must be called into question.

Stay focused, troll. We're talking about Wimbledon champ vs talented choker on this thread.
Wimbledon champ versus....

Y3c1ZlS.jpg
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
so basically Stich was lucky to play in the '90s inconsistency decade when GOAT baseliners and/or passers wouldn't be regularly cooking him,,,
You assume then that he’d keep that style if he grew up in the current era. You’re not “lucky” to play in an era if you hone a skill set that suits the era well. That’s just called being prepared.

The only way you can actually be lucky/unlucky is if the whole meta changes during your playing career, like with Hewitt and the advent of poly.
 
You assume then that he’d keep that style if he grew up in the current era.
no, and nothing i said implied a focus on translating Stich to the current era. if Stich played in the '80s i think he'd struggle more against the likes of Wilander, Connors, Lendl, and Mecir, compared to his existing primary baselining/returning/passing competition of Agassi, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, and Chang. if he played in the '70s i think he'd struggle a lot against Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Connors, Okker, Nastase, Vilas, Orantes, and Kodes. those eras also favored consistent and mentally tough players more than the '90s, which i think would hurt Stich.
You’re not “lucky” to play in an era if you hone a skill set that suits the era well.
it's pretty lucky to be a headcase in an era that relatively favored sporadic peakers (and not just s&vers/fast courters). it would be different if the first thing brought up in Stich's defense was his injuries, which i do think could be attributed at least a bit to the unique demands of his era (and up through Federer's generation)
The only way you can actually be lucky/unlucky is if the whole meta changes during your playing career, like with Hewitt and the advent of poly.
i think you could be unlucky if you have the right skillset and then someone comes along who is a particularly bad matchup for you (and not in the sense of a clear level difference)
 
Top