Yep, won Madrid Masters (on indoor hard) about a month later, taking down Federer in the SF.
Which slam champions has Zverev eclipsed?
- Thread starter Pheasant
- Start date
zakopinjo
Professional
He doesn't need it
The man has won 7 masters, 2 atp finals and gold at the Olympics and has multiple deep runs at 3 out of 4 slams
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
I no way is Berrettini better than Panatta. How many former champions has he beaten in a slam? Any masters? He might still make it, though.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I was already sold after the AO semi this year
The Guru
Legend
This becomes complicated for me when you factor in competition. Look at someone like JMDP. Is 1 slam really worth more than a higher career peak rank (2v3) 6 masters, 2 WTF, OG and more deep runs at all of the big events. Imo clearly not. But then you get into the issue of competition and I have a hard time saying Zverev's a greater player than JMDP. Look at the olympics do I think Del Po wins the 21 Olympics in Zverevs place with either his 12 or 16 efforts. Hell yeah I do. Do I think he picks up at least a few more masters than he did if his prime was late 10s early 20s? Definitely. Do I think it means a whole hell of a lot that his slam win comes off of beating mid 20s Fedal B2B? Yep. When I'm comparing that to masters where you're facing the likes Jarry, Humbert, and 2017 Djokovic it's hard to give that nearly as much weight.
If I looked at Wikipedia and looked at a list of all their tennis accomplishments Zverev is better no question even without the slam. But if I look at the tennis Del Po was producing in 12-13 where he won no big titles made no slam finals and got bronze in the olympics and think what he would accomplish playing like that in 2024. I think 2 masters and a slam final is definitely achievable.
Zverev has a better resume than all the post 2000 1 slam wonders except Roddick and Medvedev but I'm not sure how many of them I'd actually put him over. I'm not sure I even put him over the best of the slamless goldengen guys. I mean **** peak Stronga/Berdych might have him at all 4 slams.
If I looked at Wikipedia and looked at a list of all their tennis accomplishments Zverev is better no question even without the slam. But if I look at the tennis Del Po was producing in 12-13 where he won no big titles made no slam finals and got bronze in the olympics and think what he would accomplish playing like that in 2024. I think 2 masters and a slam final is definitely achievable.
Zverev has a better resume than all the post 2000 1 slam wonders except Roddick and Medvedev but I'm not sure how many of them I'd actually put him over. I'm not sure I even put him over the best of the slamless goldengen guys. I mean **** peak Stronga/Berdych might have him at all 4 slams.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It’s not very complicated because then the question arises: with his current resume, why couldn’t he break through at the slams as well? The stronger the resume, the bigger the fail
The Guru
Legend
No I don't agree with that. It's all separate for me. If you win in BO3 playing great tennis that can only ever enhance your legacy. I value the masters and WTF a lot because until recently when the Big 3 started using them as tune ups they contained all the best players in the world going all out to win. Winning events like that is extremely impressive. His failures at slams don't cheapen his succeses in BO3. His WTF wins for example are genuinely very high quality and very impactful on his legacy imo.
His slam performances have obviously been quite bad but he's put up more respectable efforts than people remember. It's just hard to give him credit for losing close when you have absolutely no faith in him to win close matches. Like it's not random that he loses all these coinflip matches and at some point that has to factor in to how you evaluate his level if you have to basically bake in choking. Like AO 20/21/24 RG 21 USO 20/21 are all matches where he was basically even or better in level and lost and if he wins half of those matches he probably has at least one slam. Then add in RG 22 where he was choking before the injury and RG 24 where he gets somewhat of a pass for me but it's another example. It's just so egregious at this point. When you're not an ATG you have to win on the margins because your best level is going to be just good enough to get you in striking distance of beating the best but when you show time and time again that you cannot win on the margin then it's hard to give you credit for getting there.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Zverev won Madrid on clay without losing his serve even once in 2018, it is down as one of the most dominant runs ever by anyone to a masters 1000 title. To think they cannot bring the heat is just plain hating.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
100% agree! Ferrero was a dude that could ball on any surface, full stop. His best surface was clay, sure, but he'd taken Hewitt to five sets in an insanely tough TMC final on indoor hard and his two best finishes at Wimbledon (both QF's) came after his career had been ravaged by illness and injury. A healthy JCF probably wouldn't have added anymore major trophies to his collection but IMO he would have been a near lock to make the second week at the majority of events. His body let him down more than his game did.
Winner Sinner
Hall of Fame
Instead, for me, there is a way to consider Berrettini better than Panatta. You rightly point out that Panatta has obtained more excellent scalps than Berrettini, above all the two victories against Borg (but also against Vilas, Nastase, Connors, etc.) at Roland Garros, victories that take on even more importance since he was the only one to beat the Swede on the Parisian clay. To this pro Panatta obviously we must add the 3 big titles (Roland Garros, Rome and Stockholm) that he boasts against Berrettini's 0.
And let's also add a better best ranking, n°4 vs n°6.
Here, basically the pro Panatta aspects, although all heavy, end here.
Because if we talk about frequency of high levels, overall performance in the slams, adaptability on every surface, the comparison doesn't even begin in favor of Berrettini.
Berrettini has reached at least the quarterfinals in all slams, and at least the semifinals in 3 out of 4, with the historic final at Wimbledon as the pinnacle, a milestone that no other Italian male tennis player has yet achieved.
He has already equaled the number of tournaments won by Panatta, but if Panatta's are heavier, Berrettini's are more varied, having won 4 of the 10 total on grass and the other 6 on clay, while Panatta won 90% of his 10 titles on clay.
On hard surfaces, Berrettini has not yet won any ATP tournament, but he boasts two slam semifinals.
Berrettini is still the Italian tennis player with the most weeks in the top 10, a national record that is now numbered since Sinner has him in his sights, but compared to Panatta he has a number of weeks in the top 10 if I'm not mistaken more than double.
Berrettini entered the top 10 at the end of 2019 and remained there uninterruptedly until the end of 2022, while Panatta's appearances in the top 10 are practically limited to just 1976.
In short, in terms of talent/potential there is no doubt that Panatta>Berrettini, those who have experienced Panatta speak of one of the greatest tennis talents in the history of this sport, a talent however not supported by the right competitive hunger. If instead we talk about career then Berrettini certainly enters the conversation with Panatta.
Incognito
Legend
Didn’t he win Barcelona? That’s a 500
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
You think Brian Teacher is more accomplished than Zed because he won a “major” (six matches) at a time the AO was a third tier event and with a super weak draw (highest ranking he beat was #33 and three of his six match wins the players were ranked #124 or higher).
Zed is on a vastly higher level. There are others on the list he’s much better and more accomplished than. Like T.J, Gómez, Gaudio, among others.
Last edited:
Slams aren't the only game in town. If someone won 40 Masters titles with zero slams vs someone who won 1 Slam and nothing much else - the former has a better career.
Rios was better.
gamelovergold
Semi-Pro
Slam win is highly regarded in tennis circle. Without slam Zverev is going to become best player not to win a slam. He better tighten his game and win atleast 1 slam .
Tennfan123
Legend
Imagine TJohanson is on a plane. The person next to him asks what he does and he says he’s a retired tennis player. The person says oh I don’t follow it but I know about the slams. I won one of those says TJ. Wow cool, says the person. And asks to hear more.
Now imagine it’s Zod. I reached two finals he says. He still gets a cool. I won the tour finals. What’s that? asks the person. And some masters. Oh okay. I don’t really know about those. And I won Olympic gold. tennis is in the Olympics? Why? You guys have slams!
Meanwhile TJ would be giving an account of his slam winning day and the person is taking mental notes to tell friends back home.
Now imagine it’s Zod. I reached two finals he says. He still gets a cool. I won the tour finals. What’s that? asks the person. And some masters. Oh okay. I don’t really know about those. And I won Olympic gold. tennis is in the Olympics? Why? You guys have slams!
Meanwhile TJ would be giving an account of his slam winning day and the person is taking mental notes to tell friends back home.
aldeayeah
G.O.A.T.
Panatta was the only person to beat Borg in RG, and thus earned immortality.
Same reason why Soderling is still superior to Zverev
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
Perhaps statistically, but in the eyes of tennis pundits, players and audiences, slams trump all. I’m sure that someone would trade all 40 of his masters titles for just one slam if it would be his first and only. Likewise, Z would trade all 10 of his big titles for just one slam.
RS
Bionic Poster
Yeah 7 masters and 2 YEC's and a gold is very impressive stuff. It does look a bit strange than with all that there isn't one major in there though.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Murray was never top 2 at rg or USO
Barely top 3 in wimby during his prime
Top 3 at AO once nadal started having issues
And he won just 3.
Zverev isn't even top 3 at any slam next year.
Barely top 3 in wimby during his prime
Top 3 at AO once nadal started having issues
And he won just 3.
Zverev isn't even top 3 at any slam next year.
He is top 2 now
He's top 2 in the rankings, but not one of the two favorites to win any of the individual Majors (although he has some argument at the French Open).
But Zverev has the Olympics, and he ALWAYS (before and after he actually won it) said this is above everything, and that he would never swap it for a Slam. And both Alcaraz and Djokovic said similar things this year.
So while your statement is usually true, it doesn't hold water when it comes to someone who won Gold at the Olympics, and especially Zverev.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
He hasn't eclipsed any of them. Alexander Zverev is a weak-era champion. The guy lost to Nadal and Djokovic in the grand slams when they were in their mid 30s. He's awful.
joselito66
New User
None.
Similar threads
