'Problem' with Stan

[Breakpointerer]

Stan would destroy RAFA on clay. Stan beat Novak badly at French open while RAFA gets destroyed by Novak on red clay

Lol what??

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Lol what??

NoVaK oWnS rAfA oN rEd ClAy, IsN't It ThE bIgGeSt DiScOvErY oF 21sT cEnTuRy?!!

 

[Goof]

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?

1) He was a late bloomer, so that limited his window to compete for Major titles; 2) he's got a bigger frame/body and plays way behind the baseline with very big strokes, so his body breaks down more and he doesn't have quite the stamina for 7 best of 5s in a row that Nadal, Djok, and Murray do (and that Roger had too but didn't need as much due to his style of play).

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Stan is an anomaly. He had his fair share of luck in winning 3 slams.

And just one M1000.

It is rather strange. Perhaps he is moody. He used to be not very confident before 2012. It took him a while to sort himself out to start being one of the best. One of the best example of GAS. Great Age Shift. He peaked very late.

 

[Nostradamus]

Djokovic owns Nadal!
Rafa leads Djoker 6:1 at RG. Is that how you describe 'own' in cloud cuckoo land?

All of Rafa's wins over novak on clay is when Novak was still trying to learn how to play his best on clay. Once Novak learned to play his best tennis on clay courts, it was NO contest between Rafa and Novak. When both are healthy and playing their best on clay, Novak totally owns Rafa. that is cause Novak has proven he is actually Better than rafa from the Baseline. That is tough but Novak somehow made it happen

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

All of Rafa's wins over novak on clay is when Novak was still trying to learn how to play his best on clay. Once Novak learned to play his best tennis on clay courts, it was NO contest between Rafa and Novak. When both are healthy and playing their best on clay, Novak totally owns Rafa. that is cause Novak has proven he is actually Better than rafa from the Baseline. That is tough but Novak somehow made it happen

Do you need a hug to calm down?!!
There are millions of trees out there, go and hug any one for 5 minutes

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Wawrinka is closer to Cilic in category. He's certainly nowhere near Murray in the broader scheme of things.

People love to fawn over Stan on these forums, but the harsh reality is that he largely won RG 2015 and USO 2016 by default, as he escaped meeting any of th Big 4 in form.

He's played in 110+ Masters tournaments, and won only once (and that was at the farcical Monte Carlo event.)

He's obviously nowhere near Murray, and Cilic is more of a comparable player.

 

[Mainad]

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?

It's not all about the Slams.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It's not all about the Slams.

I know and I also know you are a Murray fan, but be honest you cannot seriously believe that Murray is closer to Djokovic than to Stan.

 

[Mainad]

I know and I also know you are a Murray fan, but be honest you cannot seriously believe that Murray is closer to Djokovic than to Stan.

Of course I can. Murray has won multiple Slams, the WTF, multiple Masters and been ranked world #1. Outside of the Slams, Wawrinka has never been close to achieving any of those things. In the type of things that Murray has achieved, he is far closer to Djokovic than Stan will ever be.

If it weren't for their Slam parity, could you honestly believe that Murray is closer to Stan than to Djokovic?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Of course I can. Murray has won multiple Slams, the WTF, multiple Masters and been ranked world #1. Outside of the Slams, Wawrinka has never been close to achieving any of those things. In the type of things that Murray has achieved, he is far closer to Djokovic than Stan will ever be.

If it weren't for their Slam parity, could you honestly believe that Murray is closer to Stan than to Djokovic?

Ok sure you can believe whatever you want but seriously this is completely laughable. Slams might not be everything but they are the most important metric and 16 > 3 = 3. It cannot get any simpler. Even if we look at masters that are second tier tournaments it reads 33 > 14 > 1. So even here Djokovic us further ahead of Murray than Murray is ahead of Stan. We can go further to WTF or weeks at No.1 but I think you get the point. It is simple maths.

 

[Mainad]

Ok sure you can believe whatever you want but seriously this is completely laughable. Slams might not be everything but they are the most important metric and 16 > 3 = 3. It cannot get any simpler. Even if we look at masters that are second tier tournaments it reads 33 > 14 > 1. So even here Djokovic us further ahead of Murray than Murray is ahead of Stan. We can go further to WTF or weeks at No.1 but I think you get the point. It is simple maths.

In this respect there are lies, damned lies and simple maths. Okay, 33 > 14 is a little more distant than 14 > 1 but, come on, are you really trying to equate 1 solitary Masters win as being more in tune with 14 than 14 is with 33? 1 is solitary, 14 and 33 are both double digit numbers and no active player has won anywhere near double digit Masters titles other than the Big 3 plus Murray. The difference might not be as great in terms of 'simple maths' but in terms of achievement it's a whole different ball-game and are you really going to try and tell me that a guy who has never come close to being ranked #1 is much closer in ranking terms to a guy who fought to achieve #1 and stayed there for 41 weeks?

Be honest, would you really say Cilic is closer to Agassi than Agassi is to Nadal because Cilic's solitary Slam title is closer to Agassi's 8 than Agassi's 8 is to Nadal's 19? If you do, then so be it but I doubt you'll get many to agree with you.

For me, what's important is the difference in kind rather than degree. Murray has achieved all the kind of things Djokovic has. Outside of the Slams, Stan hasn't.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Djokovic is head and shoulders above Murray at every slam, even Wimbledon now (even if peak-to-peak that wasn't the case), as well as the YEC, and most masters. Murray is (slightly) *worse* than Wawrinka at two slams, slightly better at another and only in a different realm at Wimbledon, plus he's better at the YEC but not massively so (1W + 3SF isn't head and shoulders above 3SF). Much better in all masters apart from MC, but they come last so the fact that Murray and Wawrinka are in the same ballpark at 4 of the 5 biggest events means the differential between them cannot be compared in magnitude to the one between Djokovic and Murray.

 

[Mainad]

Djokovic is head and shoulders above Murray at every slam, even Wimbledon now (even if peak-to-peak that wasn't the case), as well as the YEC, and most masters. Murray is (slightly) *worse* than Wawrinka at two slams, slightly better at another and only in a different realm at Wimbledon, plus he's better at the YEC but not massively so (1W + 3SF isn't head and shoulders above 3SF). Much better in all masters apart from MC, but they come last so the fact that Murray and Wawrinka are in the same ballpark at 4 of the 5 biggest events means the differential between them cannot be compared in magnitude to the one between Djokovic and Murray.

You think being ranked #3 for 33 weeks is in the same ball park as being ranked #1 for 41 weeks? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning the London double (WTF title plus Y/E #1) is in the same ball park as getting to 3 semis? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 1 solitary Masters title is in the same ball park as winning 14? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 4 big titles (Slams, WTF, Masters) is in the same ball park as winning 18 (20 if you include the OSG)? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 16 singles titles is in the same ball park as winning 46? Mmmmmkay.

You think, outside of the Slam count, Wawrinka is in the same ball park as Murray? Mmmmmkay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You think being ranked #3 for 33 weeks is in the same ball park as being ranked #1 for 41 weeks? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning the London double (WTF title plus Y/E #1) is in the same ball park as getting to 3 semis? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 1 solitary Masters title is in the same ball park as winning 14? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 4 big titles (Slams, WTF, Masters) is in the same ball park as winning 18 (20 if you include the OSG)? Mmmmmkay.

You think winning 16 singles titles is in the same ball park as winning 46? Mmmmmkay.

You think, outside of the Slam count, Wawrinka is in the same ball park as Murray? Mmmmmkay.

Wawrinka being in the same ballpark as Murray in 4 of the 5 biggest events is enough to show how much greater the gap between Djokovic and Murray is, since Djokovic is much greater than Murray in all of those events.

 

[Mainad]

Wawrinka being in the same ballpark as Murray in 4 of the 5 biggest events is enough to show how much greater the gap between Djokovic and Murray is, since Djokovic is much greater than Murray in all of those events.

But it doesn't really say much because the gap between Murray and Wawrinka in everything, outside of the Slam count, is also too vast to make any meaningful comparison.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In this respect there are lies, damned lies and simple maths. Okay, 33 > 14 is a little more distant than 14 > 1 but, come on, are you really trying to equate 1 solitary Masters win as being more in tune with 14 than 14 is with 33? 1 is solitary, 14 and 33 are both double digit numbers and no active player has won anywhere near double digit Masters titles other than the Big 3 plus Murray. The difference might not be as great in terms of 'simple maths' but in terms of achievement it's a whole different ball-game and are you really going to try and tell me that a guy who has never come close to being ranked #1 is much closer in ranking terms to a guy who fought to achieve #1 and stayed there for 41 weeks?

Be honest, would you really say Cilic is closer to Agassi than Agassi is to Nadal because Cilic's solitary Slam title is closer to Agassi's 8 than Agassi's 8 is to Nadal's 19? If you do, then so be it but I doubt you'll get many to agree with you.

For me, what's important is the difference in kind rather than degree. Murray has achieved all the kind of things Djokovic has. Outside of the Slams, Stan hasn't.

I agree that the value of margins in slams and masters is decreasing in the sense that of course the difference between 8 and 12 slams is not as big as between 1 and 5. However, Djokovic is Head and shoulders above Murray in the most important metric slams, while Murray and Wawrinka are equal. This alone already sets the deal tbh, but IF Murray was close to Djokovic in all other achievements you listed, like if he had 30 masters, 4 YEC, 200 weeks at No.1 or so, than MAYBE you would have a point and we could see the big difference in slams as some kind of outlier. However, as I have shown, Djokovic is also way ahead of Murray in all other achievements. Even talking numbers of 14 and 33, the difference of 19 masters is huge and so is the difference of 4 YEC. Whether 33-14 is a bigger margin in achievements than 14-1 or 5-1 bigger than 1-0, is not really the point, because no matter how we spin it Murray isn’t close to Djokovic in anything while Stan is very close to Murray (actually even) in the most important metric. Agassi btw is from a different era of polarization, 16 seeds, big players regularly skipping slams, so I find it difficult to asses his career against Nadal’s based on total slam number.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

For me, what's important is the difference in kind rather than degree. Murray has achieved all the kind of things Djokovic has. Outside of the Slams, Stan hasn't.

You cannot simply ignore total numbers. Going by your logic, Agassi would be extremely close to Federer as he achieved all the kind of things Federer did. Won the WTF, won all four slams, was No.1, YE No.1, won masters. Actually he would even be ahead of Fed as he won OSG which Federer didn’t. You see how ridiculous this is?

 

[Mainad]

I agree that the value of margins in slams and masters is decreasing in the sense that of course the difference between 8 and 12 slams is not as big as between 1 and 5. However, Djokovic is Head and shoulders above Murray in the most important metric slams, while Murray and Wawrinka are equal. This alone already sets the deal tbh, but IF Murray was close to Djokovic in all other achievements you listed, like if he had 30 masters, 4 YEC, 200 weeks at No.1 or so, than MAYBE you would have a point and we could see the big difference in slams as some kind of outlier. However, as I have shown, Djokovic is also way ahead of Murray in all other achievements. Even talking numbers of 14 and 33, the difference of 19 masters is huge and so is the difference of 4 YEC. Whether 33-14 is a bigger margin in achievements than 14-1 or 5-1 bigger than 1-0, is not really the point, because no matter how we spin it Murray isn’t close to Djokovic in anything while Stan is very close to Murray (actually even) in the most important metric. Agassi btw is from a different era of polarization, 16 seeds, big players regularly skipping slams, so I find it difficult to asses his career against Nadal’s based on total slam number.

I can only repeat that, for me and many others, it's not all about the Slams. If it were, I would agree with you but I don't believe that to be the case. Whole career has to be taken into account otherwise it's a complete waste of time for anybody to be playing anything other than 4 tournaments a year (which is a good thing or else the tour would not survive). When one takes whole career into account, Stan is very very far away from Murray indeed. Kind trumps degree.

Incidentally if you don't like the comparison between Agassi and Nadal then let's try one from his own era where the metrics are the same. Would you say that Agassi is closer to Courier than he is to Sampras because 8 Slams is closer in number to 4 than it is to 14? Would you say that Becker and Edberg are closer to Kafelnikov than they are to Borg because 6 is closer in number to 2 than it is to 11? Yet we call them ATGs and deny that status to Courier and Kafelnikov with whom they are closer in number than they are to other ATGs like Borg and Sampras. Do you see that merely counting numbers does not tell you everything about a player's career. You have to look into the kind of things they achieved and not just sit around counting Slams (or anything else).

If you want to dismiss achievements like WTFs, Masters, OSGs, #1 rankings etc. and just stick blindly to the Slam count then that's your privilege. It's not mine. I guess we'll both have to accept that our yardsticks for measuring a player's achievements are vastly different. Mine being as broad as possible. Your's being as narrow as possible.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I can only repeat that, for me and many others, it's not all about the Slams. If it were, I would agree with you but I don't believe that to be the case. Whole career has to be taken into account otherwise it's a complete waste of time for anybody to be playing anything other than 4 tournaments a year (which is a good thing or else the tour would not survive). When one takes whole career into account, Stan is very very far away from Murray indeed. Kind trumps degree.

Incidentally if you don't like the comparison between Agassi and Nadal then let's try one from his own era where the metrics are the same. Would you say that Agassi is closer to Courier than he is to Sampras because 8 Slams is closer in number to 4 than it is to 14? Would you say that Becker and Edberg are closer to Kafelnikov than they are to Borg because 6 is closer in number to 2 than it is to 11? Yet we call them ATGs and deny that status to Courier and Kafelnikov with whom they are closer in number than they are to other ATGs like Borg and Sampras. Do you see that merely counting numbers does not tell you everything about a player's career. You have to look into the kind of things they achieved and not just sit around counting Slams (or anything else).

If you want to dismiss achievements like WTFs, Masters, OSGs, #1 rankings etc. and just stick blindly to the Slam count then that's your privilege. It's not mine. I guess we'll both have to accept that our yardsticks for measuring a player's achievements are vastly different. Mine being as broad as possible. Your's being as narrow as possible.

If Kind trumps degree please answer the following question: is Agassi close to Federer? After all he won all kind of things Federer won and even more (OSG) as described by me in post #68. Would you say Agassi is closer to Federer than he is to Lendl, Connors, Mac?

 

[Mainad]

If Kind trumps degree please answer the following question: is Agassi close to Federer? After all he won all kind of things Federer won and even more (OSG) as described by me in post #68. Would you say Agassi is closer to Federer than he is to Lendl, Connors, Mac?

You didn't answer my questions but I will answer your's. He is closer in kind than are the others you mentioned because he won all 4 Slams like Federer did and even went one better by winning something Federer didn't ie. the OSG.

In terms of pure degree he is closer to the others of course.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You didn't answer my questions but I will answer your's. He is closer in kind than are the others you mentioned because he won all 4 Slams like Federer did and even went one better by winning something Federer didn't ie. the OSG.

In terms of pure degree he is closer to the others of course.

Sorry which question. Can you ask me again and I will gladly answer it.

 

[Mainad]

Sorry which question. Can you ask me again and I will gladly answer it.

"Incidentally if you don't like the comparison between Agassi and Nadal then let's try one from his own era where the metrics are the same. Would you say that Agassi is closer to Courier than he is to Sampras because 8 Slams is closer in number to 4 than it is to 14? Would you say that Becker and Edberg are closer to Kafelnikov than they are to Borg because 6 is closer in number to 2 than it is to 11? Yet we call them ATGs and deny that status to Courier and Kafelnikov with whom they are closer in number than they are to other ATGs like Borg and Sampras. "

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

"Incidentally if you don't like the comparison between Agassi and Nadal then let's try one from his own era where the metrics are the same. Would you say that Agassi is closer to Courier than he is to Sampras because 8 Slams is closer in number to 4 than it is to 14? Would you say that Becker and Edberg are closer to Kafelnikov than they are to Borg because 6 is closer in number to 2 than it is to 11? Yet we call them ATGs and deny that status to Courier and Kafelnikov with whom they are closer in number than they are to other ATGs like Borg and Sampras. "

Becker and Edberg are closer to Borg than to Kafelnikov. Agassi is closer to Sampras than to Courier but only slightly, mostly due to his CGS. As I already acknowledged, the fewer total slams, the more important is the gap. 5 vs. 2 > 20 vs. 17. However, the case of Murray, Stan and Djokovic is different. The gap of 13 slams vs the gap of zero slams and the gap of 19 masters vs 13 masters makes it impossible to put Murray closer to Djoker than to Stan irrespective of the total numbers.