ATP Tour

Can Zverev climb the Roland Garros-Wimbledon double mountain?

Alexander Zverev is competing at Wimbledon with a trophy that has changed the narrative of his career. The German conquered Roland Garros to claim his first Grand Slam title and, in Paris, ended a long wait that one of the most consistent players of his generation had endured for years.

But the calendar leaves little time for reflection.

Just a few weeks after triumphing on the Paris clay, Zverev arrives at Wimbledon facing a challenge that has historically distinguished the great champions from those capable of achieving something even rarer: winning Paris and London in the same year. The so-called Channel Slam.

There aren’t many precedents. In the Open Era, only six men have achieved it. Rod Laver was the first, in 1969. Bjorn Borg did it three years running, between 1978 and 1980. Rafael Nadal pulled it off in 2008 and 2010. Roger Federer achieved it in 2009. Novak Djokovic added his name to the list in 2021. And Carlos Alcaraz became the latest to join the group in 2024.

Nine Roland Garros-Wimbledon doubles over half a century of professional tennis. The figure speaks volumes about the scale of the challenge.

It is not simply a matter of winning two consecutive Grand Slams. The problem is that Roland Garros and Wimbledon demand, in the space of just four weeks, two almost diametrically opposed sides of a player’s game. Paris calls for patience, stamina, the ability to stay on top of the ball, the capacity to cope with long rallies, and the physical strength to sustain four- and five-hour matches on clay. London demands quicker decision-making, careful serving, low returns, maintaining court position and accepting that a single poor shot can turn an entire set on its head.

On the calendar, less than a month separates the red clay from the green grass. In tennis terms, they sometimes seem like different continents.

Zverev knows the first part well. His title at Roland Garros was the confirmation of a particularly mature side of his game. The German has built much of his success on the consistency of his groundstrokes, the power of his backhand, his ability to open up the court from the baseline and a serve which, when it’s working, allows him to compete with anyone. On clay, these elements give him time. He can set up his shots, move his opponent around, extend the rallies and turn the match into an exercise in control.

Wimbledon is a different kettle of fish.

The grass doesn’t negate a player’s strengths, but it forces them to employ them differently. The serve takes on immediate importance. The first forehand can be more decisive than a 10-shot rally. The low bounce punishes players who are a split second too late. The scope for building a point is reduced. And, above all, the opponent can escape from tricky situations more easily if they manage to string together a series of good serves.

That is why the Channel Slam is so highly prized. It does not merely reward those who excel on a single surface. It rewards those who can adapt quickly without losing their identity, proving their ability to adjust.

Rod Laver was the first man of the Open Era to achieve this, in 1969, during the season in which he completed the second natural Grand Slam of his career. The Australian won Roland Garros and Wimbledon as part of an even greater feat: winning all four Grand Slam titles in the one year. His Paris-London double became synonymous with an era in which the best players were beginning to compete against one another on a regular basis, but it already hinted at a notion that remains true today: dominating those two consecutive weeks of Grand Slam action requires an extraordinary level of adaptability.

Borg took that dominance to another level.

The Swede won Roland Garros Open and Wimbledon in 1978, 1979 and 1980 – three years on the trot. No player has ever repeated such a feat. His achievement remains extraordinary because, in theory, his game seemed tailor-made for clay; a huge physique, consistency from the baseline, patience and an immense ability to wear down his opponent. But Borg found a different formula on grass. He didn’t just survive. He served and volleyed more frequently, attacked decisively and drew on his competitive composure to keep his cool when the point came down to the wire.

His triple double remains one of the rarest feats in the history of tennis. Winning Roland Garros once and Wimbledon once is difficult enough. To repeat this feat for three consecutive summers seems almost to defy the logic of the different surfaces.

Nadal was the next to prove that this transition could be achieved whilst retaining an identity deeply rooted in clay. In 2008, he won his fourth consecutive Roland Garros title and went on to defeat Roger Federer in the most famous Wimbledon final in history. The Spaniard did not arrive in London as a player who had simply learnt to hold his own on grass. He arrived as a genuine title contender, having lost the 2006 and 2007 finals to his Swiss nemesis.

That 2008 victory changed his relationship with the tournament. Nadal had not only achieved the Channel Slam; he had dispelled one of the last remaining doubts regarding his ability to dominate away from clay. Two years later, in 2010, he repeated the double. He won at Roland Garros without dropping a single set and claimed Wimbledon by defeating Tomas Berdych in the final.

Nadal showed that adapting does not always mean giving up what you do best. His forehand remained powerful, his defence remained formidable and his intensity remained intact. What changed was how he used those tools. He improved his serve, attacked earlier and understood when to take the initiative so as not to get caught up in overly short rallies.

Federer completed the double in 2009, a particularly significant year in his career. He won Roland Garros for the first time, thereby completing his own Career Grand Slam. He then went on to Wimbledon and lifted his sixth trophy in London, defeating Andy Roddick in a final that was decided 16–14 in the fifth set.

For Federer, the challenge was almost the opposite of Nadal’s. Wimbledon was his natural stomping ground. Roland Garros was the big test he had yet to overcome. Winning in Paris allowed him to add the final piece missing from his particular jigsaw. Winning in London afterwards confirmed that he could sustain a season of the highest demands between two tournaments with contrasting requirements.

Djokovic added his name to the list in 2021.

The Serbian arrived in Paris with a chance to complete the second stage of his quest for a calendar Grand Slam and won Roland Garros by defeating Nadal in the semi-finals and Stefanos Tsitsipas in the final. Weeks later, at Wimbledon, he once again asserted his dominance over Matteo Berrettini to lift his sixth trophy in London.

His Channel Slam had a very different feel. Djokovic was already one of the most complete players of all time and had won Wimbledon five times before that summer. But conquering Paris and London back to back allowed him to bring together two very distinct aspects of his game: the patience and resilience needed to survive on clay, and the return game, serving accuracy and ability to handle pressure on grass.

Alcaraz was the last to join the party, in 2024.

The Spaniard conquered Roland Garros in a season marked by physical demands and his ability to raise his game in big matches. He then arrived at Wimbledon as the defending champion and went on to sink Djokovic once again in the final. At the age of 21, he became the youngest player ever to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same season.

His story epitomises a modern take on the Channel Slam. Alcaraz can play from the baseline on clay, defend, lift the ball and create long rallies. But he can also serve with precision, attack the net, use the drop shot and accelerate his forehand on grass. His tennis adapts to different surfaces not through patience, but through variety. He has all the solutions to ensure that the transition between surfaces does not feel like a chore, but another opportunity to change his game.

Zverev is now entering that conversation with a different slant.

The German, who is now through two rounds at The All England Club, does not come into Wimbledon with a reputation as a grass-court specialist. Nor does he have the confidence that comes from a previous triumph in London. His best finish at the tournament was reaching the Round of 16, making the challenge all the more intriguing.

Winning Roland Garros has given him a confidence boost, but it has also increased the intensity of the spotlight on him. Until a few weeks ago, Zverev was one of the best players without a Grand Slam title. Now he is a major champion. Every subsequent tournament will be viewed through the prism of that new status. Wimbledon will allow him to see how his game responds after a complete change of surface, pace and expectations.

There are factors that could work in his favour. His serve could be a decisive weapon on grass. His flat backhand enables him to keep the ball low. His experience in big matches allows him to understand the pressure of decisive moments. And his height gives him a natural advantage in inflicting damage from the very first shot.

But the Channel Slam isn’t won on theory alone.

It requires winning seven matches in a row. Then another seven. It requires surviving an inspired opponent in the first week. It requires accepting that there may be tie-breaks, sets without breaks and afternoons when the opponent’s serve can turn every return into a battle. It requires a quick recovery after Paris and flicking the switch for a surface that offers no room for hesitation.

Only six men have achieved it in the Open Era. Borg made it a habit. Nadal did it twice. Federer and Djokovic added it to their already monumental careers. Alcaraz won everyone over by achieving it at breakneck speed. Zverev, fresh off his debut Grand Slam title, now has the chance to discover why this double remains one of the toughest challenges on the calendar.

While Roland Garros gave him his first summit, Wimbledon has presented him with another mountain.