Thiem & Zverev against the Big 3

[USO]

They both have been able to get wins against each of the big 3 so I think it adds a little bit of legitimacy to this final.

Overall h2h (Slam h2h)

Thiem
vs Federer 5-2 (0-0)
vs Nadal 5-9 (1-5)
vs Djokovic 4-7 (2-2)

Zverev
vs Federer 4-3 (0-0)
vs Nadal 1-5 (0-1)
vs Djokovic 2-3 (0-1)

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

 

[Deleted member 748597]

 

[Third Serve]

I wouldn’t be too surprised given Fed is 12 years older than Thiem and 16 years older than Zverev. Even wider age gap than Thiem/Zverev and Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[FRV3]

I wasn't surprised by any of this, because I keep track like a hawk to understand the dynamics.

 

[K-H]

Nadal still owning these young guns

 

[Phoenix1983]

Interesting stats. Certainly these two are the most worthy of the ‘youngsters’ (not sure if Thiem, aged 27, can be called such).

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

They both have been able to get wins against each of the big 3 so I think it adds a little bit of legitimacy to this final.

Overall h2h (Slam h2h)

Thiem
vs Federer 5-2 (0-0)
vs Nadal 5-9 (1-5)
vs Djokovic 4-7 (2-2)

Zverev
vs Federer 4-3 (0-0)
vs Nadal 1-5 (0-1)
vs Djokovic 2-3 (0-1)

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

Fed is 12 years older than thiem and 16 years older than zverev, plus he's missed big time in IW2019 and Madrid 2019 vs Thiem. Shanghai 19 was a missed opportunity too.

 

[King No1e]

Sebastian Nadal, Dick Enberg, and Ken Rosewall

 

[MeatTornado]

Thiem already has legitimacy. This is his 3rd slam final and he's already defeated both Djokovic & Nadal at a major before, including Nadal on a hard court. So if Nadal had played, Thiem could've been in his half and still presumably made the final anyway. He's already proven it. Not to mention their epic in New York 2 years ago that could've gone either way.

Zverev has no such accolades at slams. It's almost impossible to see him beating either Djokovic or Nadal to reach these finals. Especially with the way he's been playing the last couple rounds.

 

[MeatTornado]

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

Helps that they racked up some Ws during his comeback in 2016. Not to mention Sascha's free win in that Montreal final.

Not to say they haven't played well against him. Both Zverev's 2018 and Thiem's 2019 YEC wins against him were really, really good. Totally overwhelmed Federer with their power in those matches. The real tipping point, at least with Thiem, was Spring 2019 where he got back-to-back wins at IW & Madrid. Two matches that both could've gone the other way. Amazingly, Thiem was the stronger player mentally in both.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Thiem already has legitimacy. This is his 3rd slam final and he's already defeated both Djokovic & Nadal at a major before, including Nadal on a hard court. So if Nadal had played, Thiem could've been in his half and still presumably made the final anyway. He's already proven it. Not to mention their epic in New York 2 years ago that could've gone either way.

Zverev has no such accolades at slams. It's almost impossible to see him beating either Djokovic or Nadal to reach these finals. Especially with the way he's been playing the last couple rounds.

If Zverev beats Thiem today, you shall regret this post.

 

[MeatTornado]

If Zverev beats Thiem today, you shall regret this post.

Why?

 

[JackGates]

They both have been able to get wins against each of the big 3 so I think it adds a little bit of legitimacy to this final.

Overall h2h (Slam h2h)

Thiem
vs Federer 5-2 (0-0)
vs Nadal 5-9 (1-5)
vs Djokovic 4-7 (2-2)

Zverev
vs Federer 4-3 (0-0)
vs Nadal 1-5 (0-1)
vs Djokovic 2-3 (0-1)

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

I'm surprised that Fed and Nole have combined losing h2h vs Kyrgios, while Murray owns Kyrgios.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Why?

Er, because you’ve basically said Zverev is a nobody while Thiem is a somebody. Now you may be proven right, but it was a risky post IMHO.

 

[MeatTornado]

Er, because you’ve basically said Zverev is a nobody while Thiem is a somebody. Now you may be proven right, but it was a risky post IMHO.

I will absolutely stand by what I said if Zverev wins. Even if he gets by Thiem I still don't believe he would've beaten Novak had he not been DQ'd or Nadal had he shown up. I don't think he would've even taken a set with the way he's playing.

 

[victorcruz]

Nadal still owning these young guns

Doesn't he have a 1 game losing streak against both??? Damn, hope they haven't figured him out

 

[JackGates]

Doesn't he have a 1 game losing streak against both??? Damn, hope they haven't figured him out

Vs Zverev Fed wasn't at his best, but at least Thiem seems to have the game to bother Federer.

 

[USO]

I will absolutely stand by what I said if Zverev wins. Even if he gets by Thiem I still don't believe he would've beaten Novak had he not been DQ'd or Nadal had he shown up. I don't think he would've even taken a set with the way he's playing.

So basically in a slam right now

1) Zverev can beat Thiem
2) Thiem can beat Nadal and Djokovic
3) Zverev can't win a set off of Nadal and Djokovic



You know, maybe it's finally Zverev's time in slams. He's won some Masters 1000 so it was only a matter of time that he also starts having great results in slams...

 

[Phoenix1983]

I will absolutely stand by what I said if Zverev wins. Even if he gets by Thiem I still don't believe he would've beaten Novak had he not been DQ'd or Nadal had he shown up. I don't think he would've even taken a set with the way he's playing.

You’re free to hold that opinion of course, but to me it seems like a pre-emptive way to discredit Zverev if he wins this tourney.

 

[MeatTornado]

You’re free to hold that opinion of course, but to me it seems like a pre-emptive way to discredit Zverev if he wins this tourney.

The tournament already had a bit of an asterisk before it even began. If you find my posts from 2 weeks ago I wouldn't write it off immediately (unlike all the 17.5 nonsense) and wanted to see the level of play first. Just because Fed and Rafa and Stan and everyone else were gone, if guys like Djokovic and Thiem were playing their normal level and the quality was there, I would count it the same as any other slam (granted, that was mainly based on the assumption that the winner would have to go through Djokovic).

But the quality simply has not been there. Sascha has absolutely no business being in a slam final based on his 6 matches. He might win today for any number of reasons (maybe he plays great, maybe Thiem's foot didn't heal, any number of reasons) but I won't look at it as some sort of breakthrough by him and expect him to suddenly be in slam finals moving forward.

 

[JackGates]

The tournament already had a bit of an asterisk before it even began. If you find my posts from 2 weeks ago I wouldn't write it off immediately (unlike all the 17.5 nonsense) and wanted to see the level of play first. Just because Fed and Rafa and Stan and everyone else were gone, if guys like Djokovic and Thiem were playing their normal level and the quality was there, I would count it the same as any other slam (granted, that was mainly based on the assumption that the winner would have to go through Djokovic).

But the quality simply has not been there. Sascha has absolutely no business being in a slam final based on his 6 matches. He might win today for any number of reasons (maybe he plays great, maybe Thiem's foot didn't heal, any number of reasons) but I won't look at it as some sort of breakthrough by him and expect him to suddenly be in slam finals moving forward.

Zverev is better, he just had a mental block versus big 3, no way he will have that vs his own generation. Zverev is technically superior player and tactically too, and no mental block. Thiem is just a good athlete, but won't be enough on this court.

 

[duaneeo]

Thiem already has legitimacy.

At Roland Garros. His "legitimacy" at the HC slams is no more 'legit' than Zverev's.

This is his 3rd slam final and he's already defeated both Djokovic & Nadal at a major before, including Nadal on a hard court. So if Nadal had played, Thiem could've been in his half and still presumably made the final anyway. He's already proven it.

No he hasn't, and I wish posters stop grouping the AO and USO together. Yes, they are both HC slams, but beating Nadal at the AO is a totally different cup of tea than beating Nadal at the USO.

 

[MeatTornado]

Zverev is better, he just had a mental block versus big 3, no way he will have that vs his own generation. Zverev is technically superior player and tactically too, and no mental block. Thiem is just a good athlete, but won't be enough on this court.

Mental block vs the Big 3? What?

Thiem's been the one losing to them in slams. Sascha's made a career out of crashing out in the first week.

 

[MeatTornado]

At Roland Garros. His "legitimacy" at the HC slams is no more 'legit' than Zverev's.



No he hasn't, and I wish posters stop grouping the AO and USO together. Yes, they are both HC slams, but beating Nadal at the AO is a totally different cup of tea than beating Nadal at the USO.

It's really not. Nadal is a beast in Australia, his numbers are just worse there because he's injured more often in January than September.

He has not played any better in NY than Melbourne the last 3 years (since Thiem emerged) despite the title difference. He was just fortunate to not play Federer or Djokovic in his USO finals.

 

[ND-13]

They both have been able to get wins against each of the big 3 so I think it adds a little bit of legitimacy to this final.

Overall h2h (Slam h2h)

Thiem
vs Federer 5-2 (0-0)
vs Nadal 5-9 (1-5)
vs Djokovic 4-7 (2-2)

Zverev
vs Federer 4-3 (0-0)
vs Nadal 1-5 (0-1)
vs Djokovic 2-3 (0-1)

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

I think 2 of Thiem’s wins were Fed losing with MP and another 2 points from victory

Really , this should not even be a comparison given Zverev and Thiem are 12-16 years younger . This is like Sampras playing Rod Laver today

 

[JackGates]

Mental block vs the Big 3? What?

Thiem's been the one losing to them in slams. Sascha's made a career out of crashing out in the first week.

I will be surprised if Thiem ends up with more majors than Zverev. It means I don't know anything about tennis. Maybe I should stop playing table tennis and start playing tennis...

 

[USO]

I think 2 of Thiem’s wins were Fed losing with MP and another 2 points from victory

Really , this should not even be a comparison given Zverev and Thiem are 12-16 years younger . This is like Sampras playing Rod Laver today

Yeah but up until 2018 Federer was still winning slams and last year 2019 he almost won Wimbledon. So no it’s not the same thing as Sampras playing Laver, things have changed and now players compete at a high level well into their 30s. I do get that Federer is at the end of his career but he was still having great results so the matches are legit despite the age disadvantage...

 

[MeatTornado]

I will be surprised if Thiem ends up with more majors than Zverev.

Well that's a different story and I can absolutely see that happening, despite how much better Thiem is right now.

 

[JackGates]

Well that's a different story and I can absolutely see that happening, despite how much better Thiem is right now.

But it's so hard to predict these things. Zverev seems to be more talented, but does he have work discipline? Or can his body hold up the grind? So many things that are not related to talent and skills.

 

[Phoenix1983]

The tournament already had a bit of an asterisk before it even began. If you find my posts from 2 weeks ago I wouldn't write it off immediately (unlike all the 17.5 nonsense) and wanted to see the level of play first. Just because Fed and Rafa and Stan and everyone else were gone, if guys like Djokovic and Thiem were playing their normal level and the quality was there, I would count it the same as any other slam (granted, that was mainly based on the assumption that the winner would have to go through Djokovic).

But the quality simply has not been there. Sascha has absolutely no business being in a slam final based on his 6 matches. He might win today for any number of reasons (maybe he plays great, maybe Thiem's foot didn't heal, any number of reasons) but I won't look at it as some sort of breakthrough by him and expect him to suddenly be in slam finals moving forward.

Hmm OK. I just don't think you can say that it counts for Thiem if he wins the slam, but not for Zverev if he does (which is what you seem to be implying).

 

[duaneeo]

It's really not. Nadal is a beast in Australia, his numbers are just worse there because he's injured more often in January than September.

Nadal is more injured at the start of the season than at the end of the season? Come on now. He's only missed one AO tournament, and the losses since 2009 (to Murray, Ferrer, Djokovic (2), Berdych, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Federer, Cilic, and Thiem) have nothing to do with injury.

As said, the AO is the AO, and the USO is the USO. Saying that a player can do something at one because of what he's done at the other simply isn't true.

 

[junior74]

Federer has really been up and down these last years. He absolutely humiliated Zverev in the Halle17 final master class after losing to Zverev on the same court in 2016. This is what ageing does to athletes, despite the "age is just a number" and "40 is the new 30" fluff.

 

[MeatTornado]

Hmm OK. I just don't think you can say that it counts for Thiem if he wins the slam, but not for Zverev if he does (which is what you seem to be implying).

I said his place in the final is more legitimate than Sascha's place in the final.

 

[MeatTornado]

Nadal is more injured at the start of the season than at the end of the season? Come on now. He's only missed one AO tournament, and the losses since 2009 (to Murray, Ferrer, Djokovic (2), Berdych, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Federer, Cilic, and Thiem) have nothing to do with injury.

As said, the AO is the AO, and the USO is the USO. Saying that a player can do something at one because of what he's done at the other simply isn't true.

The retirements against Murray and Cilic had nothing to do with injury?

 

[mike danny]

They both have been able to get wins against each of the big 3 so I think it adds a little bit of legitimacy to this final.

Overall h2h (Slam h2h)

Thiem
vs Federer 5-2 (0-0)
vs Nadal 5-9 (1-5)
vs Djokovic 4-7 (2-2)

Zverev
vs Federer 4-3 (0-0)
vs Nadal 1-5 (0-1)
vs Djokovic 2-3 (0-1)

I was surprised to see that Federer has a losing record to both!

Why? He is old as f*ck and those guys are 12 and 16 years his juniors.

 

[mike danny]

Thiem already has legitimacy. This is his 3rd slam final and he's already defeated both Djokovic & Nadal at a major before, including Nadal on a hard court. So if Nadal had played, Thiem could've been in his half and still presumably made the final anyway. He's already proven it. Not to mention their epic in New York 2 years ago that could've gone either way.

Zverev has no such accolades at slams. It's almost impossible to see him beating either Djokovic or Nadal to reach these finals. Especially with the way he's been playing the last couple rounds.

This is Thiem's 4th slam final. And yes, he is definitely much more favored against Nadal on a HC.

 

[mike danny]

Helps that they racked up some Ws during his comeback in 2016. Not to mention Sascha's free win in that Montreal final.

Not to say they haven't played well against him. Both Zverev's 2018 and Thiem's 2019 YEC wins against him were really, really good. Totally overwhelmed Federer with their power in those matches. The real tipping point, at least with Thiem, was Spring 2019 where he got back-to-back wins at IW & Madrid. Two matches that both could've gone the other way. Amazingly, Thiem was the stronger player mentally in both.

Why? He is 12 years his junior.

 

[mike danny]

I'm surprised that Fed and Nole have combined losing h2h vs Kyrgios, while Murray owns Kyrgios.

Federer owns Kyrgios.

 

[duaneeo]

The retirements against Murray and Cilic had nothing to do with injury?

Was he playing injured, or did the injury happen during the game, or was he really injured, or...

Regardless, your argument was that Thiem has "proven" he can beat Nadal at the USO because he did so at the AO. No. Thiem has never beaten Rafa at the USO, meaning he's never proven it.

 

[mike danny]

I will absolutely stand by what I said if Zverev wins. Even if he gets by Thiem I still don't believe he would've beaten Novak had he not been DQ'd or Nadal had he shown up. I don't think he would've even taken a set with the way he's playing.

Yep. One of the lowest levels ever displayed by a slam finalist.

Of course, if he plays a strong final or even wins, all is forgiven.

 

[ND-13]

Yeah but up until 2018 Federer was still winning slams and last year 2019 he almost won Wimbledon. So no it’s not the same thing as Sampras playing Laver, things have changed and now players compete at a high level well into their 30s. I do get that Federer is at the end of his career but he was still having great results so the matches are legit despite the age disadvantage...

1 or 2 good runs at tournaments does not mean a comparison with a player aged 37-39 is valid. Federer has losses to Millman, Rublev, Dmitrov, Tsitsipas and barely scraps past Sandgren, Fuscovics.

 

[MeatTornado]

Thiem has never beaten Rafa at the USO, meaning he's never proven it.

So anything short of beating the exact player on the exact same court while both in proper form is basically meaningless then.

 

[StrongRule]

Thiem already has legitimacy. This is his 3rd slam final and he's already defeated both Djokovic & Nadal at a major before, including Nadal on a hard court. So if Nadal had played, Thiem could've been in his half and still presumably made the final anyway. He's already proven it. Not to mention their epic in New York 2 years ago that could've gone either way.

Zverev has no such accolades at slams. It's almost impossible to see him beating either Djokovic or Nadal to reach these finals. Especially with the way he's been playing the last couple rounds.

Zverev pushed Nadal to a 4 hours match in AO 2017. If you mention Thiem's USO 2018 then why not mention that too? He wasn't great in this USO, but at his best he can play very good tennis. People just keep underrating him.

And by the way, this is Thiem's 4th slam final.

 

[USO]

Only two games have been played so far and I have a feeling Zverev will win. He’s hitting huge so far.

 

[duaneeo]

So anything short of beating the exact player on the exact same court while both in proper form is basically meaningless then.

Ten different players have beaten Nadal at the AO since 2009. He's simply more beatable at the AO than he is at the USO.

Grouping two HC tournaments together as one is simply wrong. A player's performance and results at one don't necessarily translate to the other (as shown by the records of many players).

 

[USO]

Ten different players have beaten Nadal at the AO since 2009. He's simply more beatable at the AO than he is at the USO.

Grouping two HC tournaments together as one is simply wrong. A player's performance and results at one don't necessarily translate to the other (as shown by the records of many players).

Nadal has 5 AO finals and 5 USO finals. He’s had some very close heartbreaking losses at the AO like 2012 and 2017, so his 1 title is misleading. He also had some losses where he was battling injury. I don’t think it’s such a huge difference between the AO and USO for him as shown by the number of finals, just better luck at the USO.

 

[MeatTornado]

Ten different players have beaten Nadal at the AO since 2009. He's simply more beatable at the AO than he is at the USO.

Grouping two HC tournaments together as one is simply wrong. A player's performance and results at one don't necessarily translate to the other (as shown by the records of many players).

Aren't you the same guy who was desperate for Federer to play the clay seasons in 2017-18 because he was having so much hard court success?

 

[USO]

I'm bumping this thread to remind people that both the USO champion and finalist are deserving and very talented.