Is Stanislas Wawrinka the least dimensional / versatile multiple grand slam winner ever?

G

Ganstaz003

Rookie
Has there ever been a multiple grand slam winner with such a limited dimensional game as Stanislas Wawrinka? He is pretty much the epitome of hit and hope tennis with lots of power. When it works, he can sometimes look unbeatable but when it doesn't, he can look like a player who is way below average.

It's a huge shame that a much superior player in Andy Murray hasn't won more grand slams than the limited Stan Wawrinka as there's no doubt Andy Murray is much superior. I guess Stan Wawrinka has been lucky a couple of times. However, he never has been or never will be better than Andy Murray. His limited game is the reason why he'll never win Wimbledon.
 
Ganstaz003 said:
Has there ever been a multiple grand slam winner with such a limited dimensional game as Stanislas Wawrinka? He is pretty much the epitome of hit and hope tennis with lots of power. When it works, he can sometimes look unbeatable but when it doesn't, he can look like a player who is way below average.

It's a huge shame that a much superior player in Andy Murray hasn't won more grand slams than the limited Stan Wawrinka as there's no doubt Andy Murray is much superior. I guess Stan Wawrinka has been lucky a couple of times. However, he never has been or never will be better than Andy Murray. His limited game is the reason why he'll never win Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Soooo . . . I'm not sure what your point is. One can argue that every single player on tour can look "one-dimensional" when he/she is having an off day and loses. Conversely, when you execute your gameplan and playing style, you look great.

Stan has won three of the four Slams. Murray has not. That stat alone might indicate that it is Murray who is more . . . "limited."
 
Djokovic2011 said:
A very inconsistent shot maker it has to be said. And doesn't it make you feel a bit embarrassed as a Fed fan that he's lost so many times over the years to such "one dimensional pushers"?
Click to expand...
None of the top players are pushers. Suggesting that Djokovic of all people falls in that category is one of the biggest BS I had read in this place though, and that says a lot.
 
Stan is a fringe player of the strong era who has become a dominant force in the lean period (2014-16) and has made good use of players who rely on defense largely
 
Ganstaz003 said:
Has there ever been a multiple grand slam winner with such a limited dimensional game as Stanislas Wawrinka? He is pretty much the epitome of hit and hope tennis with lots of power. When it works, he can sometimes look unbeatable but when it doesn't, he can look like a player who is way below average.

His limited game is the reason why he'll never win Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

First of all, you're underselling Wawrinka's game. Yes, it's built on power from both wings, but he's added to that game which is why he improved as a player.

1. His CC FH angled shot was rarely used/effective when he was younger but has become a weapon. He doesn't just hit it as hard as possible, but with touch and dexterity.

2. His BH CC angles have always been good and aren't an example of bashing.

3. His NET game is underrated. His ability to sneak in and close points especially with the BH volley after crushing a FH CC have helped him win his slams. He would not have won his slams without this ability.

4. He improved his serve out wide on the deuce court. This is not s power serve but rather one of precision and skill. He's not really tall so that serve isn't easy to execute.

5. He improved his movement and return enough to give him chances to hit his thunderbolts. A power hitter can ONLY HIT what he gets to and a player who can't move well enough to get into position will never get to hit a lot of power strokes. By the mere fact that he gets to hit so many shows his improvement there.

REASON WHY HE PROBABLY WON'T WIMBY

1) His BH isn't as effective as it has a longer windup and you don't get that time on grass. His return, while improved, isn't good enough to get him enough chances against elite players.

So, yeah, you could say it's his "limited game,"but then you could say that about everyone. Most slam chamipons have done a few things really well that when they really work added with some luck, they can win a slam. People like to compare players to a Federer or someone who has more paths to victory and game than just about everyone, but he's an exception and it's why he's been able to stay on top for so long. Same was true of Sampras.
 
Murray is very boring to watch. He's more one dimension player than Wawrinka. Wawrinka depends more on his own condition, when he is "on" he can beat anybody. Murray is a high class pusher. Also his first Wimbledon winning looks a little suspicious to me. I remember when watched it, I thought that Nole made a gift to Her Majesty.
 
i'm a bit confused by the thread's title... has the nadal already been stripped of his titles ? o_O

qyzjms.jpg
 
Ganstaz003 said:
Has there ever been a multiple grand slam winner with such a limited dimensional game as Stanislas Wawrinka? He is pretty much the epitome of hit and hope tennis with lots of power. When it works, he can sometimes look unbeatable but when it doesn't, he can look like a player who is way below average.

It's a huge shame that a much superior player in Andy Murray hasn't won more grand slams than the limited Stan Wawrinka as there's no doubt Andy Murray is much superior. I guess Stan Wawrinka has been lucky a couple of times. However, he never has been or never will be better than Andy Murray. His limited game is the reason why he'll never win Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

No. Wawrinka is a lot more dimensional player than Murray, Djokovic has improved under Becker, Volleys better, managed to get overheads in and to drop shot. And still I think Stan is more diverse! He can create power, has wonderful touch shots, great volleys (incl. drop shots). Murray and Djokovic beat him and most everybody for day in day out consistent high level play! But what you're saying, I am sorry, I can't follow that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ghostofMecir said:
First of all, you're underselling Wawrinka's game. Yes, it's built on power from both wings, but he's added to that game which is why he improved as a player.

1. His CC FH angled shot was rarely used/effective when he was younger but has become a weapon. He doesn't just hit it as hard as possible, but with touch and dexterity.

2. His BH CC angles have always been good and aren't an example of bashing.

3. His NET game is underrated. His ability to sneak in and close points especially with the BH volley after crushing a FH CC have helped him win his slams. He would not have won his slams without this ability.

4. He improved his serve out wide on the deuce court. This is not s power serve but rather one of precision and skill. He's not really tall so that serve isn't easy to execute.

5. He improved his movement and return enough to give him chances to hit his thunderbolts. A power hitter can ONLY HIT what he gets to and a player who can't move well enough to get into position will never get to hit a lot of power strokes. By the mere fact that he gets to hit so many shows his improvement there.

REASON WHY HE PROBABLY WON'T WIMBY

1) His BH isn't as effective as it has a longer windup and you don't get that time on grass. His return, while improved, isn't good enough to get him enough chances against elite players.

So, yeah, you could say it's his "limited game,"but then you could say that about everyone. Most slam chamipons have done a few things really well that when they really work added with some luck, they can win a slam. People like to compare players to a Federer or someone who has more paths to victory and game than just about everyone, but he's an exception and it's why he's been able to stay on top for so long. Same was true of Sampras.
Click to expand...
Too much logic in this troll thread. But a great response nevertheless.
QuentinFederer said:
I think the h2h is skewed by the age difference. 2007 Roger would straight sets peak Djokovic 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...
Nope. But he would win more often than not, at best 7 out of 10 though and probably closer to 6. If they had to play say all the slams, Masters and WTF, I imagine Fed taking 9 and Novak taking 5 or so
 
All he did was take down the #1 and #2 defensive pushers of all time at their absolute peak on mud-slow hard courts. Then he beat Federer and peak Djokovic at RG and smashed Djoker one more time at the US Open for good measure. Those 3 slams are as impressive as any 3 that I can think of.
 
None of the elite players can have one dimensional games anymore. Wawrinka, Murray have very rounded tennis books. Djokovic isn't too far behind either, he also realised years ago he had to fill out his repertoire, even things he wasn't good at.

Today's game has forced the best players to evolve as full a spectrum of shots as possible and be as balanced players as they can be. Shots less used are not less important, but more critical.
 
QuentinFederer said:
I think the h2h is skewed by the age difference. 2007 Roger would straight sets peak Djokovic 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

I don't think 07 would considering he had trouble with prime Djokovic (lost in Montreal, close straight sets win at USO)

However I think 04-06 Fed would but not quite as dominant as that. More like 7 or 8/10.
 
QuentinFederer said:
I think the h2h is skewed by the age difference. 2007 Roger would straight sets peak Djokovic 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...
In 2007, Federer lost to Djokovic in Canada, dropped a set in Dubai, faced set points in 2/3 sets in the US Open final. Only AO victory was convincing.

But sure, 2007 Roger would straight set peak Djokovic 9/10. :D
 
QuentinFederer said:
I think the h2h is skewed by the age difference. 2007 Roger would straight sets peak Djokovic 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are serious. If you are, you probably have never played tennis at any level. Djokovic's strokes look robotic and can be boring for some but he is far from being a pusher. He plays a pusher type of game only when he is short on confidence and the opponent is hitting deep and consistent shots. The top 50 or even 100 has no place for pushers.

Federer is obviously one of the best tennis players ever and the most successful of all time and the one who can be considered the GOAT. That being said, he is not straight setting peak Djokovic 9 out of 10 on any surface. Might win 7 out of 10 on grass, 6 out of 10 on clay, 6-7 out of 10 on fast hard court and 3-4 out of 10 on slower hard courts.
 
I wouldn't call him one-dimensional, however at his peak "Stanimal" level I think he'd definitely fall into "big hitter" category. It was his ability to hit big off both wings and do it consistently that was key. I remember watching him at AO and RG and just laughing at how ridiculous his line-painting was.

But he still had pretty good variety, and good movement. His peak level was quite unique actually, I'm struggling to think of other players to compare it to.
 
Their two RG semifinal were very interesting matches, showcasing their strength and weakness. In 2016, Murray's variety prevented Stan to install his power game and draw a lot of errors. In 2017, Stan was playing player and Murray was suffering all the time. Yet he was defending like crazy and was very impressive in his ability to absorb Stan''s pace and throw back everything. This time Stan was not missing though, and he eventually broke through.

Despite Murray's loss, I must say this match made me appreciate his clay abilities more and reconsider their 2016 matches, that I previously dismissed as a weak Stan day.
 
Ganstaz003 said:
Has there ever been a multiple grand slam winner with such a limited dimensional game as Stanislas Wawrinka? He is pretty much the epitome of hit and hope tennis with lots of power. When it works, he can sometimes look unbeatable but when it doesn't, he can look like a player who is way below average.

It's a huge shame that a much superior player in Andy Murray hasn't won more grand slams than the limited Stan Wawrinka as there's no doubt Andy Murray is much superior. I guess Stan Wawrinka has been lucky a couple of times. However, he never has been or never will be better than Andy Murray. His limited game is the reason why he'll never win Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Yeah Murray is so superior Wawrinka has won just as many majors as he as !! Wawrinka has won at 3 majors v Murray at 2. Wawrinka is better off both wings and has a way better serve (both 1 & 2), hardly one dimensional.

Although Murray is very consistent at losing at the AO, nobody can match him there.
 
Wawrinka can beat any form of Djokovic if playing well. Murray on the other hand has to hope Djokovic will play a terrible match, and even if it happens chances are at least 60-40 in Djokovic's favor.
 
Stan does have a rounded style, but he's playing in an era where the leading players are more multi-dimensional than ever before, so he can look like a bit of a ball-basher by comparison. The difference means that he doesn't seem to be able to play vaguely well if his whole game isn't working, whereas the Big Four can generally still reach the later stages of a tournament when struggling with part of their game, or an injury. Hence, so many early round losses, and a lack of success at the Masters events.

I also think a lot of us are still locked into the idea of what Stan was like before he got better. In his early career, he had less strings to his bow, but he definitely added a few when he got better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
An Anomaly in the Murray V Wawrinka debate that needs to be corrected.
Replies
23
Views
1K
Towser83
Towser83
M
Rod Laver Impressed by Stan Wawrinka
Replies
4
Views
972
AngieB
AngieB
conjoshruk
  • Poll Poll
Which achievement is greater, world no.1 ranking or winning a single grand slam?
2
Replies
82
Views
3K
SonnyT
S
EmmanuelJ
Will Murray ever win another Grand Slam?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Krish872007
Wawrinka on Murray: "He's Way Ahead of Me"
2
Replies
68
Views
2K
Rebel-I.N.S
Rebel-I.N.S
Back
Top