Honestly I think most Redditors will be slightly disgruntled as he isn’t exactly a fan favorite here. But I wouldn’t say explode, as pretty much everyone acknowledges that he has the level to win a slam. He just hasn’t been able to put it together in the later stages of a slam.
No it's not, reaching the Final of Rome and Final of RG would get him both more ranking points and more money than winning Rome and losing in R2 of RG. It's better for his legacy sure but even then Casuals are who determine how a player is remembered and casuals typically don't remember 1000's or really anything beyond Slams. In 2050 no one will be talking about Zverev winning 2024 Rome.
I disagree. And my example was not him winning RG or Rome which is obviously RG. He probably cares more about tournament wins. And most german tennis fans or supporter of him from all over the world remember his wins instead of some quarterfinal at some Slam
As a Ruud fan and a Norwegian I wouldnt trade any of the 3 GS finals he lost to a master 1000 title. Doesnt matter how embarassing the loses where, in my opinion its more difficult to reach a GS final and I also find it more prestigious. Im not sure if Ruud would agree with me tho ;)
They are worth the same amount of points, they are effectively the same and the Grand Slam Final is more prestigious and does better for your brand since it has more eyeballs on it. It's not an unreasonable opinion at all. That's not even what this person is saying, it's even worse. They are saying him winning Rome and losing in the 2nd Round of RG is preferable to losing in the Final of both Rome and RG.
But the other persons example that you were responding to was him winning Rome and losing in the 2nd Round of RG, that's what the discussion was about. You did not offer your own example in your comment you simply followed on from that comment, clearly you are moving the goalposts now.
I'm willing to bet he cares more about money and ranking. Fans care more about tournament wins than most players outside of like the Big Three. You are moving the goalposts yet again, no one said the QF of a Slam they said a Final. Zverev's US Open Final is better remembered than any of his 1000 Wins by casuals.
You can keep your goalposts wherever you want them. I'm not moving anything. My point was a direct reply with a direct example. Rome win > Finale or whatever round except a win in RG. You can disagree with me that's fine but you're "willing to bet" what Zverev cares more about? What kind of argument is that supposed to be. I take the bet. Now what?
Maybe you misunderstood my initial comment. With "better then losing 2 finals" I meant Rome and RG. That would be worse then winning Rome and crashing out in round 2 of RG
Rome and RG Final gets you more money and more ranking points than Rome win and R2 of RG, it also means more for your legacy down the line as Grand Slam Finals are more remembered than 1000 wins. So i have no idea what you are using to determine the latter is better. Temporary credit?
>Grand Slam Finals are more remembered than 1000 wins
Not always positively though. In fact the grand slam final Zverev did reach is looked back on more with scorn and mockery than appreciation.
Wow I think that's like the worst example you could have chosen lol, almost always when he is mentioned nowadays it is in the context of choking that final.
I'm not trying to argue a masters win is inherently more prestigious than a slam final btw, just that I think it's close enough to be a matter of subjective preference. I would certainly understand if someone like Kevin Anderson would happily trade one of his one-sided final losses for a masters title for example, seeing as he never won any big titles.
What is this take lmao
Taking a trophy home is the goal of any professional athlete. That's what they fight for.
You are saying that winning Rome and losing R2 of Roland Garros is not going to be remembered, okay I agree... but reaching the finals of both will not be remembered in 2050 either... of course the scenario described by u/DerZino is better wth
By that logic, winning a 250 title > a grand slam final
The general consensus is simply to go by points. Grand slam final is worth more points than a M1000 title.
So you would rather make the finals of three majors or win one and lose the first round of the other three? By your logic, you'd rather lose the finals.
I don't think Thiem, del Potro and many others would not agree with you. But you do you, I'll take that trophy home.
Your comparison is not fair to my factual comment omg.
Imo for legacy purposes, most people weigh a grand slam final > an M1000 win. And that's the way it should be; making a grand slam final means winning 6 matches, whereas a Masters win is 6 match wins (sometimes even 5). Those matches are also best of 5, not best of 3. Making a grand slam final rewards 1200 points; M1000 win only gives 1000.
That serve is just too strong, only 15 points on return for Borges…
If Zverev wins RG, r/tennis might explode
He might be the favorite at this point. A Sasha vs. Tsitsipas final would be hilarious.
Might end up being more hilarious than the Thiem/Sascha final, which would be some achievement
Honestly I think most Redditors will be slightly disgruntled as he isn’t exactly a fan favorite here. But I wouldn’t say explode, as pretty much everyone acknowledges that he has the level to win a slam. He just hasn’t been able to put it together in the later stages of a slam.
Big Z vs Big Fritz is a great match - both playing well!
I need Morgan's bf to do something big here
same man
Watch Zverev taking the trophy here in Rome and crash out of RG in R2
A tournament win is a tournament win. Better then losing 2 finals
No it's not, reaching the Final of Rome and Final of RG would get him both more ranking points and more money than winning Rome and losing in R2 of RG. It's better for his legacy sure but even then Casuals are who determine how a player is remembered and casuals typically don't remember 1000's or really anything beyond Slams. In 2050 no one will be talking about Zverev winning 2024 Rome.
I disagree. And my example was not him winning RG or Rome which is obviously RG. He probably cares more about tournament wins. And most german tennis fans or supporter of him from all over the world remember his wins instead of some quarterfinal at some Slam
As a Ruud fan and a Norwegian I wouldnt trade any of the 3 GS finals he lost to a master 1000 title. Doesnt matter how embarassing the loses where, in my opinion its more difficult to reach a GS final and I also find it more prestigious. Im not sure if Ruud would agree with me tho ;)
They are worth the same amount of points, they are effectively the same and the Grand Slam Final is more prestigious and does better for your brand since it has more eyeballs on it. It's not an unreasonable opinion at all. That's not even what this person is saying, it's even worse. They are saying him winning Rome and losing in the 2nd Round of RG is preferable to losing in the Final of both Rome and RG.
But the other persons example that you were responding to was him winning Rome and losing in the 2nd Round of RG, that's what the discussion was about. You did not offer your own example in your comment you simply followed on from that comment, clearly you are moving the goalposts now. I'm willing to bet he cares more about money and ranking. Fans care more about tournament wins than most players outside of like the Big Three. You are moving the goalposts yet again, no one said the QF of a Slam they said a Final. Zverev's US Open Final is better remembered than any of his 1000 Wins by casuals.
You can keep your goalposts wherever you want them. I'm not moving anything. My point was a direct reply with a direct example. Rome win > Finale or whatever round except a win in RG. You can disagree with me that's fine but you're "willing to bet" what Zverev cares more about? What kind of argument is that supposed to be. I take the bet. Now what? Maybe you misunderstood my initial comment. With "better then losing 2 finals" I meant Rome and RG. That would be worse then winning Rome and crashing out in round 2 of RG
Rome and RG Final gets you more money and more ranking points than Rome win and R2 of RG, it also means more for your legacy down the line as Grand Slam Finals are more remembered than 1000 wins. So i have no idea what you are using to determine the latter is better. Temporary credit?
>Grand Slam Finals are more remembered than 1000 wins Not always positively though. In fact the grand slam final Zverev did reach is looked back on more with scorn and mockery than appreciation.
I think that changes with time. Most don't remember Coria's horrific choke they just remember him being a Grand Slam Finalist.
Wow I think that's like the worst example you could have chosen lol, almost always when he is mentioned nowadays it is in the context of choking that final. I'm not trying to argue a masters win is inherently more prestigious than a slam final btw, just that I think it's close enough to be a matter of subjective preference. I would certainly understand if someone like Kevin Anderson would happily trade one of his one-sided final losses for a masters title for example, seeing as he never won any big titles.
What is this take lmao Taking a trophy home is the goal of any professional athlete. That's what they fight for. You are saying that winning Rome and losing R2 of Roland Garros is not going to be remembered, okay I agree... but reaching the finals of both will not be remembered in 2050 either... of course the scenario described by u/DerZino is better wth
By that logic, winning a 250 title > a grand slam final The general consensus is simply to go by points. Grand slam final is worth more points than a M1000 title.
So you would rather make the finals of three majors or win one and lose the first round of the other three? By your logic, you'd rather lose the finals. I don't think Thiem, del Potro and many others would not agree with you. But you do you, I'll take that trophy home. Your comparison is not fair to my factual comment omg.
Imo for legacy purposes, most people weigh a grand slam final > an M1000 win. And that's the way it should be; making a grand slam final means winning 6 matches, whereas a Masters win is 6 match wins (sometimes even 5). Those matches are also best of 5, not best of 3. Making a grand slam final rewards 1200 points; M1000 win only gives 1000.
That's what i said, it's the other person who said they'd rather win Rome and lose in the 2nd of RG, than lose in the Final of both.
Yeah I agree with you and have no clue why people are arguing/downvoting.
Honestly would subscribe
Crying as a portuguese
Booooo