Is Wawrinka really that good or is he just a horrible match up for Djokovic?

[Wurm]

The big hitters who can hit through Novak's absurdly brilliant defense off (sometimes not even) half chances typically don't have great defenses themselves and have to be redlining to hit through him consistently - I've seen it happen on rare occasions but the opponent normally flames out after around about a set. Also, few of them can consistently hit through him off both wings.

Stan can't move quite as well as the big 4 but on a slower court it gives him the split second extra to be on the ball that brings up his defense to a level that is plenty good enough to consistently hang with Novak's probing mindful tactical shot choices and on a slower court the split second longer Stan gets to line up a big hit on any half chance Novak leaves him is enough to raise the chances of him bludgeoning a winner to a proportion that makes Novak extremely uncomfortable, particularly since there's not a safe wing to leave half chances dangling on. Best-of-5 then gives Stan wiggle room to misfire in crucial games and still have time to win outright, plus slams obviously have him more motivated.

So, it's partially match-up dependent, with a little bit circumstantial help for Stan, but he has played extremely well against Novak in the slams from 2013 onwards.

1) Nadal was not injured when Stan beat him mercilessly in the first set of AO'14.
2) RG'15 Stan would have stomped Federer - see thier later RG SF meeting where Stan basically caused Fed to retire from clay.
3) USO'16 Stan was beatable by Fedal for sure but Djokovic never should have even made it to that final, he was injured and in garbage form, he got an incredible series of lucky breaks to limp into that final where he was predictably smashed.

1) Yes, he was https://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/nadal-says-he-strained-back-warming-final/50413/ and anyone who watched his SF against Fed as well as the final could tell almost immediately that something was wrong - I know I could and I'm sure the commentators mentioned it.
2) Stan beat Federer comfortably in the QF at RG'15. Some of us watched it happen.
3) True enough... the elbow injury and lack of motivation post-FO title had him in beatable form going into the tournament. There was a sense that any one of Stan, del-Po or Murray in the other QFs could have beaten Novak in the final. Kei would have to win three big matches back-to-back and he's rarely shown signs of being able to do more than one.

 

[mike danny]

2) RG'15 Stan would have stomped Federer - see thier later RG SF meeting where Stan basically caused Fed to retire from clay.

You need to stop with this BS

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

You need to stop with this BS

I already corrected him on that before

 

[Backspin1183]

Moderately good sure, more so at the AO but aside from those back to back classics at the AO I don't think Djokovic played near his best in those slam meetings. But then I consider Djokovic's best to be 2011 not 2015...

I am sure Wawrinka has something to do with it. Djokovic plays very good until he comes across Wawrinka in a Slam. He just stops playing his usual game and starts defending more, hoping for Stan to make errors. Stan, surprisingly, makes very few errors when playing Djokovic in Slams, despite hitting the ball as hard as humanly possible. That has really amazed me about Stan in the last 3 Slam matches he played against Djokovic.

 

[RS]

Wawrinka is a really weird one IMO. Does anyone here think that Wawrinka would have won those slam finals had he faced Fedal instead. Yes I know that he beat Nadal in 2014 but Nadal was injured. Could he have defeated a healthy Nadal like he did Djokovic?

Even Djokovic himself seems to deal with Wawrinka pretty comfortably outside of the slams. But at the slams Wawrinka is nowhere near as successful against Fedal like he is against Djokovic. Is it a match up problem or could Wawrinka have done the same thing to Fedal? Is it just a coincidence because Djokovic has been the most consistent player all these years and thus he has been Wawrinka's main obstacle to GS glory?

He faced Djokovic injury effected or slumping in 2 of the 4 wins and Djokovic decent/good but not his best in RG 15 and USO 13 as well. But the AO 14 match is big and so is the AO 13 one. I think Djokovic should play with more fire vs Stan at times as well. Stan is a tough matchup though if he is on he and Nadal on clay are the only players who can beat Djokovic at a slam when he plays well since 2014.

 

[mike danny]

He faced Djokovic injury effected or slumping in 2 of the 4 wins and Djokovic decent/good but not his best in RG 15 and USO 13 as well. But the AO 14 match is big and so is the AO 13 one. I think Djokovic should play with more fire vs Stan at times as well. Stan is a tough matchup though if he is on he and Nadal on clay are the only players who can beat Djokovic at a slam when he plays well since 2014.

And Federer of pre 2013.

 

[vex]

You need to stop with this BS

Straight sets win by Stan where Fed never really threatened him. Injury the following year. Completely healthy and didn’t bother to return after that. Stan showed him he wasn’t winning on clay even if Rafa somehow got knocked out.

 

[mike danny]

This might be your most unintentionally hilarious post ever. I’m not gonna spoil it, I’ll let you figure it out.

Wawrinka didn't make Fed retire from clay. Did you even follow tennis after 2015?

 

[vex]

Wawrinka didn't make Fed retire from clay. Did you even follow tennis after 2015?

K

Straight sets win by Stan where Fed never really threatened him. Injury the following year. Completely healthy and didn’t bother to return after that. Stan showed him he wasn’t winning on clay even if Rafa somehow got knocked out.

 

[vex]

The big hitters who can hit through Novak's absurdly brilliant defense off (sometimes not even) half chances typically don't have great defenses themselves and have to be redlining to hit through him consistently - I've seen it happen on rare occasions but the opponent normally flames out after around about a set. Also, few of them can consistently hit through him off both wings.

Stan can't move quite as well as the big 4 but on a slower court it gives him the split second extra to be on the ball that brings up his defense to a level that is plenty good enough to consistently hang with Novak's probing mindful tactical shot choices and on a slower court the split second longer Stan gets to line up a big hit on any half chance Novak leaves him is enough to raise the chances of him bludgeoning a winner to a proportion that makes Novak extremely uncomfortable, particularly since there's not a safe wing to leave half chances dangling on. Best-of-5 then gives Stan wiggle room to misfire in crucial games and still have time to win outright, plus slams obviously have him more motivated.

So, it's partially match-up dependent, with a little bit circumstantial help for Stan, but he has played extremely well against Novak in the slams from 2013 onwards.



1) Yes, he was https://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/nadal-says-he-strained-back-warming-final/50413/ and anyone who watched his SF against Fed as well as the final could tell almost immediately that something was wrong - I know I could and I'm sure the commentators mentioned it.
2) Stan beat Federer comfortably in the QF at RG'15. Some of us watched it happen.
3) True enough... the elbow injury and lack of motivation post-FO title had him in beatable form going into the tournament. There was a sense that any one of Stan, del-Po or Murray in the other QFs could have beaten Novak in the final. Kei would have to win three big matches back-to-back and he's rarely shown signs of being able to do more than one.

I’m quite aware that Stan straight setted Fed in the semis. The hypo was if they had met in the final.

Rafa looked just fine in that first set of AO’14. Are you honestly arguing that the level of play Stan exhibited was not good enough to win?

 

[mike danny]

K

Straight sets win by Stan where Fed never really threatened him. Injury the following year. Completely healthy and didn’t bother to return after that. Stan showed him he wasn’t winning on clay even if Rafa somehow got knocked out.

Then why did he come back on clay in 2019 though?

What you say could hold true of Fed only skipped the FO, but he skipped clay altogether.

- Injury in 2016
- Precautionary measures in 2017 due to not wanting to risk injury ahead of Wimb. He was playing too well and didn't want to jeopardize his chances for Wimb at age 36.
- In 2018 he did it because he figured that he could repeat his 2017 performance, but it didn't work out.

So, please, stop with this BS.

 

[vex]

Then why did he come back on clay in 2019 though?

What you say could hold true of Fed only skipped the FO, but he skipped clay altogether.

- Injury in 2016
- Precautionary measures in 2017 due to not wanting to risk injury ahead of Wimb. He was playing too well and didn't want to jeopardize his chances for Wimb at age 36.
- In 2018 he did it because he figured that he could repeat his 2017 performance, but it didn't work out.

So, please, stop with this BS.

You can argue this til your blue in the face. It’s just semantics as this point. “Playing too well and Didn’t want to risk Wimby” is indistinguishable from “Not playing RG because he knew he had no chance” and Stan was the one who taught him that lesson.

 

[RS]

And Federer of pre 2013.

Was talking since 2014.

 

[mike danny]

You can argue this til your blue in the face. It’s just semantics as this point. “Playing too well and Didn’t want to risk Wimby” is indistinguishable from “Not playing RG because he knew he had no chance” and Stan was the one who taught him that lesson.

Yeah, right...

He was also useless against Tsonga in 2013 and lost to Gulbis in 2014 and yet he came back on clay after that.

Actually, it's not indistinguishable. Fed felt his knee was acting weird on clay and didn't want to risk re-injuring it ahead of Wimb. That's all.

Otherwise, how do you explain Fed returning to clay in 2019 if what you say is true?

 

[mike danny]

Was talking since 2014.

Nadal also wasn't that great since 2014, other than that one RG win in which it was arguable whether Djokovic really was playing well.

 

[RS]

Nadal also wasn't that great since 2014, other than that one RG win in which it was arguable whether Djokovic really was playing well.

I was only counting just that win. Djokovic was good to me in RG 14 or maybe decent at least just not as good as the year before. And in future as well i mean he can still outhit Novak on clay if he is on.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

A lucky journeyman.

 

[BarNotchky]

On Stan's side of the matchup, let's not forget what he lacks in movement he more than makes up for with great hands.

https://www.reddit.com/r/maybemaybemaybe/comments/ggn8fb

 

[flutzingitaway]

Then why did he come back on clay in 2019 though?

What you say could hold true of Fed only skipped the FO, but he skipped clay altogether.

- Injury in 2016
- Precautionary measures in 2017 due to not wanting to risk injury ahead of Wimb. He was playing too well and didn't want to jeopardize his chances for Wimb at age 36.
- In 2018 he did it because he figured that he could repeat his 2017 performance, but it didn't work out.

So, please, stop with this BS.

I do think his declining results at RG played a part in his taking a break there. Along with other key factors- age, resting for Wimbledon, pacing himself, already having a RG title and knowing he had a much better shot at Wimbledon. That would mean not only Stan causing that though, but Tsonga and Gulbis who beat him at the previous 2 RG events, and numerous other factors though. The Stan match in 2015 might have been one factor, but only one of about 12 or so.

 

[Enga]

The fact that Stan makes it to the quarters and semis in the first place puts him above 99% of other players. Then proceeding to wipe the floor with Djokovic proves he belongs among the top.

 

[flutzingitaway]

The fact that Stan makes it to the quarters and semis in the first place puts him above 99% of other players. Then proceeding to wipe the floor with Djokovic proves he belongs among the top.

It is all relative though. There is no doubt Stan is a great player but the legend of Stan is a big exagerrated given that he is so hopeless vs Federer and Nadal, even an old slowed down Nadal, and a very old Federer. Minus Federer on clay and Nadal on some few remaining faster courts. Add to that his horrid consistency, only 1 Masters title, and never ending a year higher than #4 (even Raonic has a YE#3).

I rate Hewitt over him, and just possibly Safin too. I would rate him just ahead of Roddick despite his 3 slams to Roddick's 1, and if it wasn't for his 3rd slam I would have him behind him for sure.

 

[Breakpointerer]

You can argue this til your blue in the face. It’s just semantics as this point. “Playing too well and Didn’t want to risk Wimby” is indistinguishable from “Not playing RG because he knew he had no chance” and Stan was the one who taught him that lesson.

Tbh it was pretty clear that he had no chance at RG before Stan wrecked him in '15.

 

[Crazy Finn]

It is all relative though. There is no doubt Stan is a great player but the legend of Stan is a big exagerrated given that he is so hopeless vs Federer and Nadal, even an old slowed down Nadal, and a very old Federer. Minus Federer on clay and Nadal on some few remaining faster courts. Add to that his horrid consistency, only 1 Masters title, and never ending a year higher than #4 (even Raonic has a YE#3).

I rate Hewitt over him, and just possibly Safin too. I would rate him just ahead of Roddick despite his 3 slams to Roddick's 1, and if it wasn't for his 3rd slam I would have him behind him for sure.

No for me on that last part. Stan made the most of his opportunities at the slams. Roddick, not so much. Also, Stan's game all around is better than Roddick. What did he do better other than serve?

 

[flutzingitaway]

No for me on that last part. Stan made the most of his opportunities at the slams. Roddick, not so much. Also, Stan's game all around is better than Roddick. What did he do better other than serve?

I mean I don't have an easy answer for you there. Wawrinka probably has a better overall game for sure, but the two most important shots in tennis are the serve and forehand. While Wawrinka has a very big and effective all around first serve when it is working (not super consistent) no doubt Roddick has the edge there. Forehand? I think Wawrinka's forehand is underrated by some people, but I would still argue Roddick's is atleast comparable, and even probably better when it was really at its best, even though his forehand had a decline at some point (largely mental and poor coaching). There are also the intangibles like mentality and other things, many which Roddick seems stronger despite his inability to get over the finish line at slams, along of that coinciding with peak Federer, unlike Wawrinka. It is not like either are super complete or versatile players either, both are probably power hitters, power servers who both blast and grind from the baseline, and not a whole lot else. Wawrinka is probably a better volleyer, but it is not a big component of his game or anything, nor does he slice and hit a lot of finesse shots, he probably uses angles more and better than Roddick but beyond that not much difference.

And I didn't say I had Roddick above Stan. I said I probably would have IF Stan did not win his 3rd major. Which would negate a lot of the opportunities at slams thing if he didn't get that 3rd slam, especialy when Stan played in an era those were a lot more plentiful with the Big 3 aging as he late bloomed into his prime. He did face Djokovic at full peak, the best match up for him of the 3 (for whatever reason) by far, the other 2 not so much.

 

[Lleytonstation]

He "can" be that good, he just happens to pick Djoker to bring it.

 

[King No1e]

On Stan's side of the matchup, let's not forget what he lacks in movement he more than makes up for with great hands.

https://www.reddit.com/r/maybemaybemaybe/comments/ggn8fb

Stan, you can't do that!

 

[Mainad]

That Stan, always hitting on the chicks. She doesn't seem to mind though.

Maybe we should re-name him "Stan the Handyman"?

The other one looks a bit jealous!

 

[flutzingitaway]

That Stan, always hitting on the chicks. She doesn't seem to mind though.

Maybe we should re-name him "Stan the Handyman"?

The other one looks a bit jealous!

That is one thing that baffles me about him though. On the surface he seems like a really nice guy, he is very popular on tour, the other players all speak highly of him. Yet he cheated and left his ex wife twice and is a bit of a womanizer. Which kind of guys against the image I have about him in most respects of being such a nice guy, since those aren't the kind of things nice people do.

 

[Enga]

That is one thing that baffles me about him though. On the surface he seems like a really nice guy, he is very popular on tour, the other players all speak highly of him. Yet he cheated and left his ex wife twice and is a bit of a womanizer. Which kind of guys against the image I have about him in most respects of being such a nice guy, since those aren't the kind of things nice people do.

I don't know where you got the cheating and womanizer thing. You must have heard that based off a rumor off of a rumor. The facts are he and his wife divorced, and then he had a girlfriend named Donna Vekic for a few years.

But also, people aren't so lack of nuance that they can be described as nice all the time. All people are nice until you get on their bad side, no? And it's quite often that people don't get along.