'Problem' with Stan

zill

Professional
Stan is a bit odd in that you have big 3 then Murray which is actually pretty close to the big 3 but not really there. Then you have Stan a fair way away from Murray. Then after Stan you've got a large group of guys who are good contenders but never really made it to the big time.

So Stan seems a bit of an oddball. What are features of Stan that disallow him to get close to the big 3?
 

BH40love

Rookie
Obviously but what is Stan lacking resulting in this inconsistency?
First off, I like Stan as a player.
I think his return is lacking sometimes and maybe he is a player who can be found lacking in a service game to hand over a break but he also has ability to get on a hot streak. I think his 1HBH lacks the variety and this hurts him sometimes. I like his style of play personally but style doesn’t dictate results.
 
Last edited:

Yoneyama

Hall of Fame
Well his game is a lot more aggressive then the others mentioned. Less margin for error and he tends to go for more winners more often. Stan has some of the fastest combined FH and BH groundstroke speeds on tour, they actually mentioned it and the speeds on TennisTV either this week or last I can't recall the exact match.

Nadal and Murray play a lot safer margins... and well Federer is also aggressive he has more restraint then Stan and has an edge when it comes to shot placement/tactics (maybe give that edge to Stan on clay though).
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Stan is a bit odd in that you have big 3 then Murray which is actually pretty close to the big 3 but not really there. Then you have Stan a fair way away from Murray. Then after Stan you've got a large group of guys who are good contenders but never really made it to the big time.

So Stan seems a bit of an oddball. What are features of Stan that disallow him to get close to the big 3?
Murray close to the big three, but Stan a fair way away from Murray???? So the difference of 13 slams is closer than the difference of exactly zero slams?
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
The real “problem” with Stan is that despite being a bad matchup for Djokovic he is the complete pigeon of Fedal. Due to his success against Djokovic however, people are buying into the myth that his peak level can compare to the best of the best and that he is close to invincible when on.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Slower, less focused, less variety. More guts & firepower only gets you the W on select occasions in the poly era
 

Tsongham

New User
Let's face it, Stan has never exactly been the fittest guy on tour, has he?
What do you mean by fittest? How do you measure it? If you comparing that who can play longest time in court without getting tired, maybe yes (?).

If fittest means body type, well. Look Stanimals instagram example. He has very muscular, strong body.
 

tonylg

Professional
Stan is definitely strong, but I don't equate that with fit. I'm stronger than a lot of guys in their 20s, but I often can't finish a long match anywhere near the standard I start it and I've seen Stan fade during matches as well.
 
In addition to the reasons mentioned by others above, Stan’s issue is a lack of a plan B if plan A doesn’t work. He’s a powerful baseliner, but if he’s misfiring, he doesn’t do much else other than continue to misfire.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Well his game is a lot more aggressive then the others mentioned. Less margin for error and he tends to go for more winners more often. Stan has some of the fastest combined FH and BH groundstroke speeds on tour, they actually mentioned it and the speeds on TennisTV either this week or last I can't recall the exact match.

Nadal and Murray play a lot safer margins... and well Federer is also aggressive he has more restraint then Stan and has an edge when it comes to shot placement/tactics (maybe give that edge to Stan on clay though).
Considering he plays with heavy spin and net clearance off both wings, I'd say he's got plenty of margin for error.

The inconsistency part is his risky directionals, not his style of groundstrokes. If we went by that, Murray plays with smaller margins than do Rafa and Stan.
 
Stan is a bit odd in that you have big 3 then Murray which is actually pretty close to the big 3 but not really there. Then you have Stan a fair way away from Murray. Then after Stan you've got a large group of guys who are good contenders but never really made it to the big time.

So Stan seems a bit of an oddball. What are features of Stan that disallow him to get close to the big 3?
Movement
Return
Consistency
 

daggerman

New User
His limited return game was evident in his match in Paris vs. Rafa. Every time Rafa served wide in the ad court to Stan's backhand, he'd get a short ball floated back to him (or Stan would miss the return entirely).
 

Robert F

Semi-Pro
I'd also say his baseline positioning. He can destroy the ball from 10' behind the line, but sometimes he seems to hover there to long, when he should be moving forward..
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Well his game is a lot more aggressive then the others mentioned. Less margin for error and he tends to go for more winners more often. Stan has some of the fastest combined FH and BH groundstroke speeds on tour, they actually mentioned it and the speeds on TennisTV either this week or last I can't recall the exact match.

Nadal and Murray play a lot safer margins... and well Federer is also aggressive he has more restraint then Stan and has an edge when it comes to shot placement/tactics (maybe give that edge to Stan on clay though).
Nadal plays safe margins??? Do you really watch tennis? Nothing could be further from the truth.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Nadal plays safe margins??? Do you really watch tennis? Nothing could be further from the truth.
High net clearance, heavy topspin to bring the ball back down, CC FHs, CC BHs, running around BHs to hit FHs when trying to changing directions; a lot of these point towards maximising margins.

Hasn't much to do with whether a player is aggressive / defensive / passive, however.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
The real “problem” with Stan is that despite being a bad matchup for Djokovic he is the complete pigeon of Fedal. Due to his success against Djokovic however, people are buying into the myth that his peak level can compare to the best of the best and that he is close to invincible when on.
All this and he only brings it in Slams or Best of 5 anyway. In normal tour matches he also loses to Djokovic every time.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
High net clearance, heavy topspin to bring the ball back down, CC FHs, CC BHs, running around BHs to hit FHs when trying to changing directions; a lot of these point towards maximising margins.

Hasn't much to do with whether a player is aggressive / defensive / passive, however.
‘Safe’ is not the word I would use.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
The real “problem” with Stan is that despite being a bad matchup for Djokovic he is the complete pigeon of Fedal. Due to his success against Djokovic however, people are buying into the myth that his peak level can compare to the best of the best and that he is close to invincible when on.
I completely agree that because Stan beats Djoker everyone takes it as read that he is dangerous. It’s the way many decided that the NextGen has arrived because Djoker has a terrible record against them but looking closely at the stats, they have a terrible record against Rafa who has played all of them and is something like 35-7 in the head to head collectively.
 

Krish0608

Hall of Fame
Stan is that kinda guy who can catch fire and wreak havoc for a couple of tournaments and then cool off considerably and play like a mug. He's a very bipolar player. Murray is way more consistent. But I've never seen Murray "catch fire"so to speak. That's perhaps due to the playing styles of both players.
 

Fabresque

Professional
He has the ability to get on a hot streak but he's too inconsistent. Mainly due to his play style and fitness levels. His groundstrokes are powerful but lack variety. His serve is quite good but isn't good enough to where he can servebot his way out of trouble. His return game is lackluster. He's a pretty slow player on the court but he can make up for it with power.

All this leads to Stan being able to play at the peak of his powers on any given day, but can also lead to Stan playing like **** and losing early to some mug.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Stan is that kinda guy who can catch fire and wreak havoc for a couple of tournaments and then cool off considerably and play like a mug. He's a very bipolar player. Murray is way more consistent. But I've never seen Murray "catch fire"so to speak. That's perhaps due to the playing styles of both players.
Wawrinka is as consistant as most top players in the Past, only when you compare him to the Big 4 he seems like "bipolar" player. Sampras in 1998 finished as number 1, reaching just 7 Finals from 21 tournaments(3-4).
Murray caught fire post Us Open 16, he absolutely destroyed the Tour to finish as number 1
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Stan is a bit odd in that you have big 3 then Murray which is actually pretty close to the big 3 but not really there. Then you have Stan a fair way away from Murray. Then after Stan you've got a large group of guys who are good contenders but never really made it to the big time.

So Stan seems a bit of an oddball. What are features of Stan that disallow him to get close to the big 3?
he is better than big 3. it is just that after that knee injury, he can't move the same as before
 

beard

Professional
Murray close to the big three, but Stan a fair way away from Murray???? So the difference of 13 slams is closer than the difference of exactly zero slams?
I kinda agree with you, but Murray / Wawa comparation shows how "slams only matters" story is just a bs... Even if Wawa wins 4th I wouldn't consider him better player or even more successful one...
 

albertobra

Hall of Fame
Stan is that kinda guy who can catch fire and wreak havoc for a couple of tournaments and then cool off considerably and play like a mug. He's a very bipolar player. Murray is way more consistent. But I've never seen Murray "catch fire"so to speak. That's perhaps due to the playing styles of both players.
This...
Stan has the game to be #1 in the world. But to be #1 in the world you gotta constantly win tournaments, not just the occasional M1000 or GS.
That means hard work, mental strength....I think Stan just runs out of stamina and is not able to be consistent throughout the season.
I think he said once:
"To be #1, you need to constantly win tourneys, and that is a lot of work, just let Djoko do that". LOL.
 
Stan is a bit odd in that you have big 3 then Murray which is actually pretty close to the big 3 but not really there. Then you have Stan a fair way away from Murray. Then after Stan you've got a large group of guys who are good contenders but never really made it to the big time.

So Stan seems a bit of an oddball. What are features of Stan that disallow him to get close to the big 3?
If Stan finds his A game he's extremely hard to stop with the weapons that he has. His B game is not as good as the rest of the big 4, so when he's not in the zone, it's not happening
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Rafa was far from playing at 100% in all of his losses against Stan. He played with a back injury in the AO 2014 final and in 2015 when Stan won the other 2, Rafa lost to anyone who could swing a racquet; he was in such bad form.
Then how did Stan beat up Novak in the French open final when RAFA cleared is owned by Novak every time when they are both healthy
 
Rafa was far from playing at 100% in all of his losses against Stan. He played with a back injury in the AO 2014 final and in 2015 when Stan won the other 2, Rafa lost to anyone who could swing a racquet; he was in such bad form.
Apart from 2014 AO, I generally agree with your statements. 2015 rafa is the worst ever version of him ever played, no confidence, no stamina, no forehand..
 

Sport

Legend
I respectfully disagree with the injury being the reason of loss for 2014 AO final.
In 2015, nadal was physically healthy, but psychologically ill
That Nadal was injured in the AO 2014 final is a fact. He was 12-0 against Stan before the final but got injured before the match in the back. That explains why he could not serve properly or run.
 
I respectfully disagree with the injury being the reason of loss for 2014 AO final.
In 2015, nadal was physically healthy, but psychologically ill
Nadal in his 2015 losses to Wawrinka actually played better than he did in AO 2014 final. Even before he started complaining about the injury he was awful. Missing 3 second serve returns on a triple BP was unreal.
 
That Nadal was injured in the AO 2014 final is a fact. He was 12-0 against Stan before the final but got injured before the match in the back. That explains why he could not serve properly or run.
Fed also tweaked his back in 2009 AO final and served below his standards.
Yet no one blames the loss over the back injury, rather rafa is credited for being clutch and roger is blamed for mentally collapsing.

So let's give the credits to the winner. It must have taken incredible mental effort from wawrinka as well, to win against someone who had (and even to date, is) been bullying him with his game every single time.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
I respectfully disagree with the injury being the reason of loss for 2014 AO final.
In 2015, nadal was physically healthy, but psychologically ill
You are not the judge of this. Just stick to the facts, if you don't mind.

Australian Open 2014: Rafael Nadal's pain brings an end to ...
https://www.independent.co.uk › Sport › Tennis

In the long term it hardly matters, but we will never know what the outcome would have been had Nadal not suffered a back injury in the warm-up before his 19th – and surely most bizarre – Grand Slam final. The Spaniard could barely run or serve by the time he had lost the first two sets, but his condition improved a little after treatment.

 
Last edited:
Top