[Blog] Young Alexander Zverev has arrived! - The Continental Grip

I first heard the name "Alexander Zverev" during the 2014 Hamburg tournament when he reached the SF, only to be demolished by David Ferrer. But that after beating four top 100 opponents in a row, including #19 Mikhail Youzhny. Zverev was 17 years old and 3 months.

Anyhow, fast forward and he's won his first big title at age 20 yrs, 1 month. I've written a couple pieces about the importance of the first big title, most recently here where I talked about how every 6+ Slam winner in the Open Era won their first big title at age 20 (or younger). For multi-Slam winners of 2-4 Slams, it is much more variable, with some winning their first as late as 28 (Stan Wawrinka).

Now maybe that age will shift, and we'll see future 6+ Slam winners win their first big title at age 21 or 22, but the weight of history is against it. Still, some would consider 12 players as too small a sample size. And to be honest, I don't see any of the players currently age 21 or older (and that includes Thiem and Kyrgios) as being future 6+ Slam winners. 2-4 Slam winners? Sure.

Of course winning your first big title at age 20 doesn't ensure greatness. It probably ensures very goodness, but there are probably many players who won their first big title at age 20 or before and didn't even win a Slam (Andrei Medvedev comes to mind, but there are others).

I would also add that when one wins their first big title within the age range of 17-20 doesn't seem to predict how good they'll become. In other words, while all greats do it by 20, earlier isn't necessarily better in terms of predicting future greatness. That said, there is one factor that I've found to be a relatively good indicator of future greatness: one thing that Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Newcombe, and Rosewall all have in common - and, among, 6+ Slam winners of the Open Era, only Laver and Agassi don't. That is that after winning their first title, they win their first big title within the following year.

Zverev won his first title in 2016, his first big one in 2017, so he is on pace. Of course this means that for a player to be great, they don't "have to" do this, but it is a good indicator. I think the important factor is that the vast majority of future greats break through relatively quickly, and don't stagnate too much once they've reached top 10 form. So my point is, what we should look for with Zverev is that he wins more big titles, or at least Masters, and starts going deeper in Slams. If he falls back to only ATP 250/500 titles over the next couple years, he is probably not destined for greatness.

But first things first. This is a kid who still hasn't made it past the 3R at a Slam. I'd really like to see him reach at least the QF of Roland Garros.

El Dude said:

But first things first. This is a kid who still hasn't made it past the 3R at a Slam. I'd really like to see him reach at least the QF of Roland Garros.

Click to expand...

Well, he will be seeded 9th at RG - so he will avoid the top 4, and in particular Nadal, until the QF. So from the point of the draw, he should have a chance - but I don't think there will be any shame if he has a little bit of a letdown after his Rome title and goes out in R3 or R4 of RG.

He will be dangerous in the grass-court season, that much seems clear.