I can't believe Wawrinka has as many slams as Murray/Safin/Hewitt now

N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Wawrinka is the Pat Rafter of this era.. except he bloomed even later.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
We definitely shouldn't underestimate Wawrinka just because he arrived into his prime unusually late. He's earned my respect. It's abundantly clear that his top level on slow surfaces is very high.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
We definitely shouldn't underestimate Wawrinka just because he arrived into his prime unusually late. He's earned my respect. It's abundantly clear that his top level on slow surfaces is very high.
I've been a fan of Wawrinka's since the 2006 AO.

This feels like a payday with extra moolah.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I've been a fan of Wawrinka's since the 2006 AO.

This feels like a payday with extra moolah.
His mercurial nature makes him very exciting to follow. Stanimal always potentially lurks in the shadows and when he arrives it's a nasty surprise, so it's a different dynamic to say a Hewitt or a Roddick.


Also it's just hit me. Wawrinka has more Majors than Roddick.

I am just surprise that wawrinka struggles on faster surfaces
Has some pretty long wind-ups though and isn't the quickest. His movement is good, and underrated, because his core is so solid and his first step is so reliable, but he isn't the quickest. His return suffers as well on faster surfaces. I find him a bit similar to Thiem who is like a Wawrinka-lite as things stand.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
That's a good comparison actually.
But Rafter really, REALLY came out of nowhere - Stan's been pretty highly touted as a talented player, if unfinished product, since he won the 2003 FO as a junior and made some noise back in 2008.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
:shock:

Never in a million years did I think that would happen. WOW!!!
Stan deserves respect. He's not consistent but when he puts it all together, good lord is he a great player. Rafa and Djoker found that out in AO14 and he proved it again today.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Indifferent surprised I guess. I thought for sure he would be slam less. Maybe peaking for a tournament with one slam but 2 slams?? :shock:
He has it in him , just like Ivanisevic.

Once he puts his mind together he can easily win.

Delpo is another one but it is a pity that guy is injured.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
Indifferent surprised I guess. I thought for sure he would be slam less. Maybe peaking for a tournament with one slam but 2 slams?? :shock:
With Nadal and Federer in clear decline, with Murray as question mark in every major tournament, and with the five last major matches he's had against Djokovic, Stan's peaking at an ideal time.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
His mercurial nature makes him very exciting to follow. Stanimal always potentially lurks in the shadows and when he arrives it's a nasty surprise, so it's a different dynamic to say a Hewitt or a Roddick.


Also it's just hit me. Wawrinka has more Majors than Roddick.
Wawrinka is more like a Rafter in that he peaks for the big ones and ignores pretty much everything else.

Hewitt and Roddick were more Murray like, really. Hewitt in particular.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
But Rafter really, REALLY came out of nowhere - Stan's been pretty highly touted as a talented player, if unfinished product, since he won the 2003 FO as a junior and made some noise back in 2008
Rafter won Newcomer of the Year in '93(when he was 21). His ranking rose 45 spots in '94 to #21 and many analysts expected him to be top 10 in '95, but he had some injury problems that year & in '96. It was a surprise when he won a major in '97 after being ranked so low in '95/'96, but in '94 he was considered a future star of the game.

I remember when he played Agassi at '95 AO, the hype beforehand was pretty intense.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Why not? His peak level of play is better than all three of them. The biggest problem for him has always been inconsistency.
Safin's peak level > Stan's peak level ...

hewitt's and murray's also quite clearly better on grass and on faster HC as well
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Safin's peak level > Stan's peak level ...

hewitt's and murray's also quite clearly better on grass and on faster HC as well
This is a point many are missing. Stanimal-Engaged level is superb in slower conditions, but I've not seen consistent evidence of Stanimal on grass or faster HC.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
This is a point many are missing. Stanimal-Engaged level is superb in slower conditions, but I've not seen consistent evidence of Stanimal on grass or faster HC.
Stan likes slower surfaces because it gives him more time to set up his lethal backhand or forehand.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
I remember the OP's jibes at Wawrinka after losing to Fed at Wimbledon QF last year.

It should be clear at least now that winning majors is way more important than beating a certain player. Who gives a damn whether it was Nole who took out Nadal this year? The record books will always Wawrinka as the champion and not a champion in lieu of Nole taking out Nadal. For all those silly potshots about Fed's poor competition between 2004-07, ask Nadal and Nole whether they would want that AO and FO instead of beating a certain player at the slam.
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Well, there was some hope after 2003. It was quite a big deal back then though NO ONE in Switzerland would've ever thought it would turn out in a guy winning 17 and the other guy 2 grand slam titles.
I myself didn't think stan would come back that good after 2008-2012, honestly.
Just incredible what he did.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Stan likes slower surfaces because it gives him more time to set up his lethal backhand or forehand.
Yeah, that's why I see Thiem as a more nascent version of Wawrinka. Do you think he'll become as good as Stan, and maintain a similar enough power baseline style? You think he'll win at least one Slam - presumably RG.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I'll bet Murray, Safin and Hewitt are just as surprised! :wink:

Let's face it. Until 18 months ago, Stan was just a familiar journeyman who scored the occasional win against a top player and was consistent enough to make the top 10 but who had never won anything higher than a few 250 events!

I doubt anybody foresaw what he has been able to achieve in the last 18 months, least of all Stan himself. But, as they say, success often (although not always) breeds success and somehow, after 12 years of being a steady and predictable 2nd tier player, he suddenly discovered his inner Stanimal and is now playing at the ripe old age of 30 at a much higher level than he did when he was 25!

I guess we are all in a state of shock!
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
I'll bet Murray, Safin and Hewitt are just as surprised! :wink:

Let's face it. Until 18 months ago, Stan was just a familiar journeyman who scored the occasional win against a top player and was consistent enough to make the top 10 but who had never won anything higher than a few 250 events!
I don't consider any Top-10, even a Top-20, player a "journeyman."
 

junior74

Talk Tennis Guru
I am not in shock. To many of us, Stan has been the favorite outsider for years.
The shock, to me, is that the world #1, who has been in his own league for quite some time, fell in four sets with no real answers, leaving the match on Stan's racquet. Having voted Stan in five, I never thought Djokovic would fall this easily in a French Open final :shock:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I don't consider any Top-10, even a Top-20, player a "journeyman."
Fair point. But in this case, what I meant was someone who just hangs around and rarely ever achieves anything against anybody ranked higher!
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
The answer's pretty straight forward.

There are a few players on the ATP tour that have the skills and weapons to win a slam, but lack the mental fitness to leverage those skills, incl. strategy and tactics.

Enter Magnus Norman. Remember he took Söderling to 2 FO finals ('09, '10) and is the only one to have beaten primetime Nadal in the FO. Now he's helped Stan to 2 slams.

Monfils is an example of a player with similar potential, that lack mental strength - in which I also count strategy and tactics, along the ability to execute skills and avoid choking.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Wawrinka 2 GS are much more deserving than Hewit or Murray.
In booth GS he beat #1 and #2 seed,and in finals beat two of the greatest players of generation and GOAT in QF.
 

Anti-Fedal

Professional
He fully deserves those 2 majors. He beat the World No.1 and 2 in both runs to the title. Fantastic performances.
 
Last edited:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Wawrinka 2 GS are much more deserving than Hewit or Murray.
In booth GS he beat #1 and #2 seed,and in finals beat two of the greatest players of generation and GOAT in QF.
Yes, beating the top 2 seeds, that's something which is very impressive! It's also something you can only do when you aren't yourself seeded 1 or 2.

As for Hewitt, don't forget that he beat Sampras in the 2001 USO final. Sampras was the runner-up in 2000 and the winner in 2002.

Murray beat Djokovic in the USO 2012, who was the winner in 2011 and the runner-up in 2013. He also beat Djokovic in Wimbledon 2013, who was the winner the next year.

But most importantly, it's nice to focus on who they beat when they won. But you shouldn't discount to whom they lost when they lost. When Stan was falling to the like of Garcia-Lopez, Bolleli (on grass!), Young, etc., Hewitt was losing to Federer or Safin. Murray was losing to Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I can't believe Wawrinka has as many slams as Murray/Safin/Hewitt now
If its about ability, Wawrinka ended any doubts with his forcing-the-issue brand of play--which is clearly more effective than Murray, Hewitt and Safin. In fact, the three you cite never possessed that devastating, truly all-court sense that prevented Djokovic from keeping him at the baseline (which serves ND's game), and in a contest of who was going to control the rest of the court--at least yesterday--Wawrinka was going to win. He has more tools to work with, and that is just a couple of reasons why he now has two majors. If he can stay healthy and motivated, I see him winning at least two additional majors before he calls it a career.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Why not? His peak level of play is better than all three of them. The biggest problem for him has always been inconsistency.
How dare you commit blasphemy and say that Stan's peak level is greater than Safin's?

Didn't you know that peak Federer conquers the universe and peak Safin beat him!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
How dare you commit blasphemy and say that Stan's peak level is greater than Safin's?

Didn't you know that peak Federer conquers the universe and peak Safin beat him!
Where's abmk when you need him? :lol:

____

On topic Stan is awesome when he's on, wouldn't surprise me to see him win another couple.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Where's abmk when you need him? :lol:

____

On topic Stan is awesome when he's on, wouldn't surprise me to see him win another couple.
Don't worry, he already swooped in on that one... :)

As for Stan winning another couple, I'd be VERY surprised. The guy is in his 30's. I don't fancy his chances at Wimbledon or the US Open.

Next year will be his last chance for another major imo, but can't see him winning another 2.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Don't worry, he already swooped in on that one... :)

As for Stan winning another couple, I'd be VERY surprised. The guy is in his 30's. I don't fancy his chances at Wimbledon or the US Open.

Next year will be his last chance for another major imo, but can't see him winning another 2.
Probably right about another 2. I think he'll be a threat at the AO and FO next year and an outside threat in 2017.

Hype train gets to us all ;)
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
If its about ability, Wawrinka ended any doubts with his forcing-the-issue brand of play--which is clearly more effective than Murray, Hewitt and Safin. In fact, the three you cite never possessed that devastating, truly all-court sense that prevented Djokovic from keeping him at the baseline (which serves ND's game), and in a contest of who was going to control the rest of the court--at least yesterday--Wawrinka was going to win. He has more tools to work with, and that is just a couple of reasons why he now has two majors. If he can stay healthy and motivated, I see him winning at least two additional majors before he calls it a career.
The second he loses a step which is probably going to happen in a year or two, Stan will have to play too offensive and make too many errors. I don't see him winning another major or two unless the draw opens up big time. I will say that Stan is probably the most underrated all-court player today. He literally has no weakness to his game aside from his return of serve (which is still serviceable, it accomplishes his goal of getting the ball deep)
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
the biggest shock is how he did it at this stage of his career and age. But just comparing their tennis games, there really should not be any surprise to him winning slams.
 
Top