Stan: I'm not as good as the Big Four

Mick · Jun 7, 2015

Despite securing his second grand slam title, Wawrinka said he still believes he does not belong in the current top bracket.
That is the reserve of the so-called “Big Four” of men’s tennis comprising Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, he said.
It was Wawrinka’s second grand slam title after last year’s Australian Open breakthrough win and at 30 years old he is clearly playing the best tennis of his life.
Still, he sees no reason to start talking about the “Big Five.”
“I’m not as good as they are. I mean the Big Four. But I’m quite good enough to win two Grand Slam tournaments,” Wawrinka said.
“I can beat them in major tournaments, in a semi-final, in a final. But once again, the Big Four will always be the Big Four.
“I don’t want to be in comparison with them. I want to make progress and strides. I want to beat them. That’s all. It is as simple as that.”

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...rench-open-final/story-fndkzym4-1227387792266

Soul_Evisceration · Jun 7, 2015

It's pretty obvious that Wawrinka is not as good as the Big Four since he's inconsistent in comparaison.

However when he's on his game, he can beat ANYONE in the Top 4.

IMO no one can match him in terms of power and hitting winners including: Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych and maybe even Soderling.

He leads the pack with his massive serve and ground game.

Nathaniel_Near · Jun 7, 2015

Interesting where he places himself, which is basically as the rogue maverick who seeks and destroys the big four, toppling the applecart. There are underdog vibes there also.

Steve0904 · Jun 7, 2015

Nathaniel_Near said:
Interesting where he places himself, which is basically as the rogue maverick who seeks and destroys the big four, toppling the applecart. There are underdog vibes there also.

Yes. I think Stan loves right where he is. He is perfectly content and fine with being there and doesn't want to be anywhere else. I think the underdog vibe helps him win these slams in all honesty.

Mainad · Jun 7, 2015

Mick said:
“I don’t want to be in comparison with them. I want to make progress and strides. I want to beat them. That’s all. It is as simple as that.”

Well, if he keeps on beating them he may find himself permanently in comparison with them and even a part of their company whether he likes it or not. It's as simple as that! :wink:

tennisaddict · Jun 7, 2015

He is saying he does not have any match up problems.

Fed has against Rafa. Rafa against Novak. Novak against Fed. Murray against all 3.

Stan against no one.

Nathaniel_Near · Jun 7, 2015

Steve0904 said:
Yes. I think Stan loves right where he is. He is perfectly content and fine with being there and doesn't want to be anywhere else. I think the underdog vibe helps him win these slams in all honesty.

I'm wondering if being a 2x Slam winner hurts him or helps him for winning future Slams. He's no longer some "one Slam wonder" but still isn't considered any sort of dominant force. Perhaps he's in a sweet spot now where he can relax, perform, execute and be a men@ce at the Slams while finally finding that consistency. Perhaps he'll eliminate a lot of his overly anxious performances where he doesn't show patience in his play - he clearly has the endurance and stroke consistency to not give away as many cheap points as he often does.

TheStranger · Jun 7, 2015

Steve0904 said:
Yes. I think Stan loves right where he is. He is perfectly content and fine with being there and doesn't want to be anywhere else. I think the underdog vibe helps him win these slams in all honesty.

I agree with this the most. Some people play better when they're in the outside role, no pressure to always make it to the SF or F or else be considered a complete failure.

Today's final, Djokovic had all the pressure to complete a career grand slam. Wawrinka saw it as neither one of them have ever won the RG title, it's fair game and played like it.

Carsomyr · Jun 7, 2015

An excellent frame of mind for him, in my opinion. He knows he'll never be as consistent or walk away at the end of the season with a treasure trove of titles, but whenever he strings together some wins in a big tournament and starts gaining some momentum, he should be regarded as having the same chance at winning a title as everyone else in the quarters or semis.

Fed881981 · Jun 7, 2015

But, isn't he, de facto, one of the best 5 players? Or, put differently, one of the 5 most accomplished active players (slam wise, at least)? He is 1 of only 5 active players with more than 1 slam.

cc0509 · Jun 7, 2015

Mick said:
Despite securing his second grand slam title, Wawrinka said he still believes he does not belong in the current top bracket.
That is the reserve of the so-called “Big Four” of men’s tennis comprising Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, he said.
It was Wawrinka’s second grand slam title after last year’s Australian Open breakthrough win and at 30 years old he is clearly playing the best tennis of his life.
Still, he sees no reason to start talking about the “Big Five.”
“I’m not as good as they are. I mean the Big Four. But I’m quite good enough to win two Grand Slam tournaments,” Wawrinka said.
“I can beat them in major tournaments, in a semi-final, in a final. But once again, the Big Four will always be the Big Four.
“I don’t want to be in comparison with them. I want to make progress and strides. I want to beat them. That’s all. It is as simple as that.”

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...rench-open-final/story-fndkzym4-1227387792266

Stan knows where it is at, i.e. to beat the best at the slams where it counts the most.

He is inconsistent as heck at most of the lesser tournaments but who cares if you can knock off a couple of the Big Four at a slam and win the title?

heninfan99 · Jun 7, 2015

Humble to the last. Gotta love Stan.

Nathaniel_Near · Jun 7, 2015

Carsomyr said:
An excellent frame of mind for him, in my opinion. He knows he'll never be as consistent or walk away at the end of the season with a treasure trove of titles, but whenever he strings together some wins in a big tournament and starts gaining some momentum, he should be regarded as having the same chance at winning a title as everyone else in the quarters or semis.

It's going to be a scary sight for all opposition on the occasions where Stan does engage Stanimal. We've seen it twice now, so Stan isn't just a flash of lightning. He's won a masters 1000 recently. We can all see how devastating his game is. He's an exciting top player because he has firepower that can realistically top the best defences in the game.

Carsomyr · Jun 7, 2015

Fed881981 said:
But, isn't he, de facto, one of the best 5 players? Or, put differently, one of the 5 most accomplished active players (slam wise, at least)? He is 1 of only 5 active players with more than 1 slam.

Steve0904 · Jun 7, 2015

Nathaniel_Near said:
I'm wondering if being a 2x Slam winner hurts him or helps him for winning future Slams. He's no longer some "one Slam wonder" but still isn't considered any sort of dominant force. Perhaps he's in a sweet spot now where he can relax, perform, execute and be a men@ce at the Slams while finally finding that consistency. Perhaps he'll eliminate a lot of his overly anxious performances where he doesn't show patience in his play - he clearly has the endurance and stroke consistency to not give away as many cheap points as he often does.

I would say it helps him. Simply, winning breeds confidence. Winning more is never a bad thing IMO (unless of course you peak too early like Novak perhaps has a tendency of doing).

90's Clay · Jun 7, 2015

Well if Murray has always been apart of the Big 4, shouldn't Stan be taking his place now? I mean he has as many slams as Murray does currently and he definitely looks to be more of a threat than Murray does these days

papertank · Jun 7, 2015

Good on Stan for these words. Anyone who thinks he is as talented as the big four is deluded. Stan has a gift that not many players possess, which is when he is at his best he is near unstoppable. But that notion pales in comparison to the consistency and achievements of the big four.

Nathaniel_Near · Jun 7, 2015

Steve0904 said:
I would say it helps him. Simply, winning breeds confidence. Winning more is never a bad thing IMO (unless of course you peak too early like Novak perhaps has a tendency of doing).

I'd tend to agree. Aside from the the clear typical advantages of winning breeding confidence, he'll also probably just be more at peace with himself and be able to express himself more often because he's definitively proved to himself that he can do it again (win a Slam). After he won the 2014 AO, he had a period of forcing his play and trying too hard to be a bludgeoning offensive juggernaut. It resulted in him absolutely destroying opposition in the early rounds of IW and Miami before disappointingly bombing out. IMV, he's going to be more and more in control of his game. There was ZERO desperation in his game in the RG final, so he's already way better at managing his form and aggression.

bluetrain4 · Jun 7, 2015

I sort of agree with him, but he could change that. He kind of sits alone right below the Big 4 and above the next players. I'm not talking computer ranking, obviously, but player "status".

For some reason, I'm not expecting much from him at Wimbledon. Would be nice to be surprised.

The great thing about Stan's rise is that it genuinely adds another dimension to the draw, another player to truly watch out for. Of course, he's not going to win all the time, and he'll probably have "bad" Slams again. But, he's a real contender and now when we look at the draw and talk about possible results, Stan will be center to the conversation nearly always.

Fed881981 · Jun 7, 2015

Carsomyr said:

I forgot about him. Fair enough!

OK, the first part of my statement still applies.

forzamilan90 · Jun 7, 2015

Nathaniel_Near said:
Interesting where he places himself, which is basically as the rogue maverick who seeks and destroys the big four, toppling the applecart. There are underdog vibes there also.

The audacity on this guy! Hope he gets to 4+ majors

Carsomyr · Jun 7, 2015

bluetrain4 said:
I sort of agree with him, but he could change that. He kind of sits alone right below the Big 4 and above the next players. I'm not talking computer ranking, obviously, but player "status".

For some reason, I'm not expecting much from him at Wimbledon. Would be nice to be surprised.

The great thing about Stan's rise is that it genuinely adds another dimension to the draw, another player to truly watch out for. Of course, he's not going to win all the time, and he'll probably have "bad" Slams again. But, he's a real contender and now when we look at the draw and talk about possible results, Stan will be center to the conversation nearly always.

Yeah, but with that kind of mindset comes expectations. I think the reason for Stan's miserable stretch of play last year from the AO to MC was because suddenly everyone expected him to be in contention for every title, and it placed a lot of pressure on him. I don't think he wants that, and that's totally fine.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a player accepting that, while he is great and capable of beating anyone, there are others that are greater.

heninfan99 · Jun 7, 2015

yeah he likes to fly somewhat under the radar. Under promise then deliver the goods. I like it.

fhdowntheline · Jun 7, 2015

I say this is some unnecessary self-deprecating talk by Stan. No offence to Murray fans, but he was just over hyped for many years until he finally won under the strict regime of Ivan Lendl. Thats what he really needed, someone to knock some cold blooded sense. Murray is also a little bit more settled as a result. And then there was this looming larger than life 17 Grand Slam shadow of Federer hanging over pretty much all of Tennis, and especially over Wawrinka.
I am glad he's stepping out of it by beating Fed and other players. Stan did not win his GS's because any of these top 4 retired during tournaments and he beat some floater in the draw. He actually beat Djoker, Federer and Nadal fair and square, and twice over the no1 ranked player. Maybe they need to re-interpret the top-4 to Djoker, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Federer is a bit out of place in the scheme of things as of today.

heninfan99 · Jun 7, 2015

^^Yeah, there is a new big 3 in place now but the exact make-up is unspeakable on these pages.

fighting123 · Jun 7, 2015

Stan is obviously not as consistent as the Big 4 but by no means he is not as good as the Big 4 in the sense that he can beat any of them, anywhere at any stages including at major level. I would go a step further saying that he stands a better chance than Andy Murray at beating the other three at the moment.

Talking about consistency, to a certain extent, Stan is not even at the same level as of Berdych, who keeps putting himself on deep rounds of MS 1000, and majors.

Mr.Lob · Jun 7, 2015

Smart of Stan da Man. Keeps the pressure off, and the Big 4 from mounting a revenge campaign.

VexlanderPrime · Jun 7, 2015

Mick said:
Despite securing his second grand slam title, Wawrinka said he still believes he does not belong in the current top bracket.
That is the reserve of the so-called “Big Four” of men’s tennis comprising Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, he said.
It was Wawrinka’s second grand slam title after last year’s Australian Open breakthrough win and at 30 years old he is clearly playing the best tennis of his life.
Still, he sees no reason to start talking about the “Big Five.”
“I’m not as good as they are. I mean the Big Four. But I’m quite good enough to win two Grand Slam tournaments,” Wawrinka said.
“I can beat them in major tournaments, in a semi-final, in a final. But once again, the Big Four will always be the Big Four.
“I don’t want to be in comparison with them. I want to make progress and strides. I want to beat them. That’s all. It is as simple as that.”

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...rench-open-final/story-fndkzym4-1227387792266

He's being honest and fair. He's too inconsistent to be compared to Murray even. BUT he's got as high a level as ANYONE when he's on his game.

D.Nalby12 · Jun 7, 2015

Nice attempt to pull underdog here from Wawr after kicking butts of two of four so called Big players in French Open.

someone should have corrected him though. He still not in the league of Big 3 but he is already belongs to same league of Murray.

RacquetAbuse101 · Jun 7, 2015

forzamilan90 said:
The audacity on this guy! Hope he gets to 4+ majors

Fingers crossed.

Algo · Jun 7, 2015

fhdowntheline said:
Maybe they need to re-interpret the top-4 to Djoker, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Federer is a bit out of place in the scheme of things as of today.

It has always been a historic kind of measurement, you can't write his 17 GS off.
And he's still n°2 anyway, so...

Agree with everything else, except that it's unnecesary self-deprecating: he knows what he is and what he isn't. And that can't be bad for oneself.

He knows that even though he isn't part of the Big 4, he can beat them. So he only has to work hard enough to put himself in the position of having a chance to actually do that.

He turned it around today doing just that, he acknowledged what he is and what he isn't, switching from a passive and safe gameplan -forced by Djokovic- to an all out attack strategy which paid off, big time... as in, he is the one taking the trophy home even if it looked like he was bound to lose should something not change about the way things were unfolding on first set and a few games into the second.

As I posted in the live commentary thread, he is no longer a mental midget or a choker or whatever derogatory term you (anyone) want to label him with, he is a two-time Grand Slam champion that earned them beating everyone that stood in the other side of the net for 14 matchs.

That doesn't put him among Big 4 for lots of reasons (titles tally and weeks at n°1 for example) and he is smart enough to know that and work out from what he truly is, a guy cappable of playing out of this world tennis when he is on.

I apologize for any grammatical mistake I might have made, I think I had never written anything this long before :lol:

fhdowntheline · Jun 7, 2015

All I'd say is, there is the ATP rankings, and then there's the Slams. There is not a single player worth his salt who would put rankings ahead of GS titles. How many threads do we on this forum have on any of the 1000-Master titles ?
Federer may be No-2 in ranking, but the fact is he is without a GS since W2012. Thats 3 years and 11 GS now. Which have been won by 5 other players.

Fedeonic · Jun 7, 2015

Algo said:
As I posted in the live commentary thread, he is no longer a mental midget or a choker or whatever derogatory term you (anyone) want to label him with, he is a two-time Grand Slam champion that earned them beating everyone that stood in the other side of the net for 14 matchs.

Hey, friend: Stan is a headcase, he's inconsistent as hell, I still remember losing to Robin Haase and to Dimitrov twice, yet he's capable to beat Nole in a GS, not once, but twice.
And in AO14, he won a match by walkover that Pospisil gave him, so he won 13 matches to seal his HoF status
We'll talk later, Rodrigo

AnotherTennisProdigy · Jun 7, 2015

It's a little harsh on himself, especially after a big win, but I appreciate how realistic and respectful he is. I mean, there aren't many careers that have more slam titles than masters 1000s. The difference in masters titles is pretty big, although they don't seem to carry that much value in this forum.

Reminds me of when delpo won his slam, and people started blowing their trumpets of a big 5.

Algo · Jun 7, 2015

Fedeonic said:
Hey, friend: Stan is a headcase, he's inconsistent as hell, I still remember losing to Robin Haase and to Dimitrov twice, yet he's capable to beat Nole in a GS, not once, but twice.
And in AO14, he won a match by walkover that Pospisil gave him, so he won 13 matches to seal his HoF status
We'll talk later

- Irrelevant to the point. Turn that around and, as someone in twitter said, I like to look at it as peaking at the right time.
- Cherrypicking.

ttyl :lol: :lol:

West Coast Ace · Jun 7, 2015

90's Clay said:
Well if Murray has always been apart of the Big 4, shouldn't Stan be taking his place now? I mean he has as many slams as Murray does currently and he definitely looks to be more of a threat than Murray does these days

???? Murray won 2 clay events. He took Djokovic to 5. He'll be one of the favorites at Wimbledon. Stan, with his big grip changes that inhibit his return on grass (not to mention his 21-20 career record on grass) won't be part of the last weekend. Murray may end up passing Fed for #2 in the rankings soon.

Stan's just being truthful. His success came much later than the others; and he's still not as consistent.

G A S · Jun 7, 2015

Carsomyr said:
An excellent frame of mind for him, in my opinion. He knows he'll never be as consistent or walk away at the end of the season with a treasure trove of titles, but whenever he strings together some wins in a big tournament and starts gaining some momentum, he should be regarded as having the same chance at winning a title as everyone else in the quarters or semis.

he is a player with a slam potential, unlike many others.

fighting123 · Jun 7, 2015

Stan practically says that I do not give a shi.t about the Big 4 as I can beat any of them on any circumstances. I am not one of them, and I dont have any intention of being one of them..

ACE of Hearts · Jun 7, 2015

This is the problem with wawrinka. Those comments. He should be hungry to capture more slams.

G A S · Jun 7, 2015

ACE of Hearts said:
This is the problem with wawrinka. Those comments. He should be hungry to capture more slams.

he sure should, tennis is really a mental sport..

Inanimate_object · Jun 7, 2015

ACE of Hearts said:
This is the problem with wawrinka. Those comments. He should be hungry to capture more slams.

*Sigh*
This is what happens when 8 year old reading comprehension is applied to a straightforward and simple statement...

Wawrinka didn't say he no longer wanted slam titles. He merely distanced himself from the tidal wave of pressure and expectations that comes along with being lumped into the so called "Big Four". There's nothing in Wawrinka's statement that suggests he wants to win the big titles any less than Murray, Djokovic, Nadal or Federer.

ACE of Hearts · Jun 7, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
*Sigh*
This is what happens when 8 year old reading comprehension is applied to a straightforward and simple statement...

Wawrinka didn't say he no longer wanted slam titles. He merely distanced himself from the tidal wave of pressure and expectations that comes along with being lumped into the so called "Big Four". There's nothing in Wawrinka's statement that suggests he wants to win the big titles any less than Murray, Djokovic, Nadal or Federer.

He has the same number of slams then murray. He could enter that conversation. I think he can bag another slam or two.

HipRotation · Jun 7, 2015

People seem to be completely missing the point of what he's saying. He feels he isn't a part of it because he doesn't have the record of dominance that those "big 4". The phrase "Big 4" is ironically similar to the coined term "Grand Slam" in that it was coined by the press to give name to a certain group of 4. It isn't about what they overall achieved but the dominance they had during a certain period where they were all just winning everything and only really losing to each other, during 2008-2012 they ended every year ranked in the top 4. The "Big 4" moniker came about in 2010 because Murray was ranked #2 before the previous US Open which was higher than Djokovic was ever ranked and had as many Masters as Djokovic at that time.

If you take the stats as is since 2010. you'll find Murray on an even par with Federer: 2 slams, 5 masters, overall 20 titles. In Grand Slams from 2010 to the end of 2013 Murray only failed to reach the Semis (and get beaten by one of the other 3) 4 times, this happened to Federer 7 times in the same period.

Wawrinka will need to up his consistency a lot to be considered next to Federer.

Inanimate_object · Jun 7, 2015

ACE of Hearts said:
He has the same number of slams then murray. He could enter that conversation. I think he can bag another slam or two.

He doesn't want to be associated with the upper echelon because it comes with the expectations of day-in-day out consistency, something which Wawrinka has never excelled in. He's much more content to play a perennial dark horse than to be a front runner man. It helps Wawrinka to firmly disentangle himself from the Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray league.

Nostradamus · Jun 7, 2015

I agree with Stan. He is NOT consistent enough to be one of the Top 4 guys. Too many OFF tournaments.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 7, 2015

Wawrinka won a total of 10 titles in his career, 2 of them are grand slams.
He knows when to step up.

apparently he doesn't believe in "slams are not everything"

Carsomyr · Jun 7, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
He doesn't want to be associated with the upper echelon because it comes with the expectations of day-in-day out consistency, something which Wawrinka has never excelled in. He's much more content to play a perennial dark horse than to be a front runner man. It helps Wawrinka to firmly disentangle himself from the Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray league.

Seconded. ....

ACE of Hearts · Jun 7, 2015

He has made a couple of quarterfinals run at wimbledon and the u.s open. Just needs to get over the hurdle. I just love his backhand when he hits it with authority. Wish roger could hit it like that lol

Nostradamus · Jun 7, 2015

ACE of Hearts said:
He has made a couple of quarterfinals run at wimbledon and the u.s open. Just needs to get over the hurdle. I just love his backhand when he hits it with authority. Wish roger could hit it like that lol

He will never be a good Grass court player though. and he really has no chance of winning the US open. These courts are just too fast. Stan needs the ball to sit up nicely so he can take that Massive swing and hit those 100 mph groundies. if the ball comes in fast and skids,,, Stan loses power and control both

BringBackSV · Jun 7, 2015

West Coast Ace said:
???? Murray won 2 clay events. He took Djokovic to 5. He'll be one of the favorites at Wimbledon. Stan, with his big grip changes that inhibit his return on grass (not to mention his 21-20 career record on grass) won't be part of the last weekend. Murray may end up passing Fed for #2 in the rankings soon.

Stan's just being truthful. His success came much later than the others; and he's still not as consistent.

Stan did not look bad last year at Wimbledon. Was his record at RG that good before this win?

Stan: I'm not as good as the Big Four

Legend

Hall of Fame

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Semi-Pro

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Hall of Fame

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

VexlanderPrime

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Similar threads