Stan Wawrinka is a legend.

Raining hopes

Hall of Fame
This guy is gives you the thrills like no other. So vulnerable at one moment and then reaching heights like no other. He is a mere mortal with a monster hidden beneath.

When he starts to hit through the court , you sometimes have to just sit back and applaud.




And yes for all those who had forgotten, to all those who doubted him ,considered him finished

let me remind you:

STAN IS STILL THE MAAAAAAAAAAN!!
 
Last edited:

MeatTornado

Legend
Stan demonstrating again that there was never a Big 4. It was either a Big 3 or a Big 5. When Stanimal is in form, he is no worse than Murray.
So the 2008-2013 years when Andy was consistently making slam finals and even winning some of them didn't constitute a Big 4? Gotcha.

But the 3 years when Stan randomly peaked for one tournament per season constituted a Big 5? Okee dokee.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
We cannot ignore that Wawrinka's resume is closer to Murray, than Murray is to the Big 3.
I'm not in the mood to have the "Big 4" debate for the thousandth time. There's a reason the term was created, and it had nothing to do with their career resumes. It was about who the biggest contenders were for each tournament (which Andy always was and Stan sporadically was for a few years).

If you want to rewrite history to fit the current narrative, then go ahead I guess.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
We cannot ignore that Wawrinka's resume is closer to Murray, than Murray is to the Big 3.
That's true, but didn't the term 'Big 4' originate because it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray consistently making the semis of the larger tournaments along with holding the top four spots in the world (starting during a timeframe where Wawrinka was little more than an afterthought, mind)? IIRC it had more to do with the same names showing up over and over again starting from the late 2000s as opposed to anything else.

EDIT: Beaten to it.
 

Sport

Legend
That's true, but didn't the term 'Big 4' originate because it was Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray consistently making the semis of the larger tournaments along with holding the top four spots in the world (starting during a timeframe where Wawrinka was little more than an afterthought, mind). IIRC it had more to do with the same names showing up over and over again starting from the late 2000s as opposed to anything else.

EDIT: Beaten to it.
Wawrinka was also making the semis or longer between 2014 and 2017. So it was a Big 5, at least those four years (2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017). I know it was a big 4 between 2008 and 2013, but we cannot ignore that Stan made history between 2014 and 2017.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
So the 2008-2013 years when Andy was consistently making slam finals and even winning some of them didn't constitute a Big 4? Gotcha.

But the 3 years when Stan randomly peaked for one tournament per season constituted a Big 5? Okee dokee.
well tbh i always say here is first and foremost a big 3 but if you want to take andy and stan for a 4th player that works
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
He is a blessed entertainer, a real gladiator at times. Fed better be prepared, 5 hours or not, Wawa not going down easy.
Exactly. Everyone thought after Nadal’s 5.5 hour Verdasco semi at AO 2009 that Fed would wipe the floor with him in the final. Now Stan Isn’t Rafa, but the match will be a lot closer than many are assuming. I think Stan even has a shot of beating Roger.
 

Raining hopes

Hall of Fame
Exactly. Everyone thought after Nadal’s 5.5 hour Verdasco semi at AO 2009 that Fed would wipe the floor with him in the final. Now Stan Isn’t Rafa, but the match will be a lot closer than many are assuming. I think Stan even has a shot of beating Roger.
People here are really getting ahead of themselves with Federer's chances. Even dreaming of a victory over Nadal. He really hasn't been tested and Stan can really blow him off the court. This is not at all as straight forward as people are thinking. The QFs are going to be more of 50-50 contest unless Wawa's fitness is horrible now and he has nothing to give after that R4.
 
People here are really getting ahead of themselves with Federer's chances. Even dreaming of a victory over Nadal. He really hasn't been tested and Stan can really blow him off the court. This is not at all as straight forward as people are thinking. The QFs are going to be more of 50-50 contest unless Wawa's fitness is horrible now and he has nothing to give after that R4.
Lose lose for Fred. Either he whips Stan as he usually does and Stan laid down for his Master.

Or Federer loses (probably goes 5 sets) and he tanked to avoid RAFA.
 

ductrung3993

Hall of Fame
Stan demonstrating again that there was never a Big 4. It was either a Big 3 or a Big 5. When Stanimal is in form, he is no worse than Murray.
Nope, GS deep run Stan >>>> Murray. Murray has trouble taking a set of an in form Fed, Nadal or Djok.
 

Wurm

Rookie
Credit to Stan, I didn't think he still had that kind of performance in him. That's by far the best I've seen him defend since his knee surgery. Maybe Tsitsipas played into his hands a little bit on a tactical level, but Stan's clutch play was immense in the final set.

We cannot ignore that Wawrinka's resume is closer to Murray than Murray is to the Big 3.
Yes we can because it's utterly irrelevant since Stan was a Gasquet level player whilst The Big Four were creating that little slice of history. We talk of the Big Three because of how things have shaken out eventually and the big 5 because of Stan's slam (and only slam) achievements.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
People here are really getting ahead of themselves with Federer's chances. Even dreaming of a victory over Nadal. He really hasn't been tested and Stan can really blow him off the court. This is not at all as straight forward as people are thinking. The QFs are going to be more of 50-50 contest unless Wawa's fitness is horrible now and he has nothing to give after that R4.
but who is really thinking he has chances to beat rafa,not sure if i see that. i think most people are saying fed loses
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Exactly. Everyone thought after Nadal’s 5.5 hour Verdasco semi at AO 2009 that Fed would wipe the floor with him in the final.
Oh come on. Federer was the favorite, but due to their established rivalry (12-6 Rafa), no one thought he would "wipe the floor" with Rafa. And 2009 Nadal was 22 years old...not 34 like 2019 Wawrinka.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Stan demonstrating again that there was never a Big 4. It was either a Big 3 or a Big 5. When Stanimal is in form, he is no worse than Murray.
Its hard to argue with this.

Stan clearly has never been anywhere near as consistently great as Andy. But Stan's peak level of play when he reaches it is outrageous. He'd be a GOAT contender if he could maintain the levels he occasionally reaches.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Stan demonstrating again that there was never a Big 4. It was either a Big 3 or a Big 5. When Stanimal is in form, he is no worse than Murray.
Let's compare like 1% of Wawrinka matches to 10% of Murray matches

That is absolutely how it works.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
This guy is gives you the thrills like no other. So vulnerable at one moment and then reaching heights like no other. He is a mere mortal with a monster hidden beneath.

When he starts to hit through the court , you sometimes have to just sit back and applaud.




And yes for all those who had forgotten, to all those who doubted him ,considered him finished

let me remind you:

STAN IS STILL THE MAAAAAAAAAAN!!
If Stan beats you, it’s just that you didn’t do your homework.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Exactly. Everyone thought after Nadal’s 5.5 hour Verdasco semi at AO 2009 that Fed would wipe the floor with him in the final. Now Stan Isn’t Rafa, but the match will be a lot closer than many are assuming. I think Stan even has a shot of beating Roger.
Bingo.

Fatigue tends to rear its ugly head as a match drags on. But there's a chance Stan comes out the gates just fine and takes the opening set, or even the first 2 of 3. Now fatigue might start to set in there and Fed will beat him. But if Roger needs 5 sets in the QF, his tournament is effectively over anyway. He'll need to be in absolute tip top shape to even have a sniff at beating Rafa the next round.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Bingo.

Fatigue tends to rear its ugly head as a match drags on. But there's a chance Stan comes out the gates just fine and takes the opening set, or even the first 2 of 3. Now fatigue might start to set in there and Fed will beat him. But if Roger needs 5 sets in the QF, his tournament is effectively over anyway. He'll need to be in absolute tip top shape to even have a sniff at beating Rafa the next round.
I don't think anyone is saying he's guaranteed to beat Stan though, except maybe Nadal and Djokovic fanatics who believe in "jinxing." You can't deny this is the perfect scenario for Federer now. The length of that match has probably tipped the odds from something resembling 50/50 to 70/30 for Federer.

Wawrinka is in no way comparable to Nadal either. I see someone else has already mentioned it, but it bears repeating again. Nadal was 22 in 2009. Wawrinka is 34 here, so Federer may have been even gotten the right winner since Tsitsipas was the much younger player. It doesn't guarantee a Federer win, it just makes it much more likely.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
There's a reason the term was created, and it had nothing to do with their career resumes. It was about who the biggest contenders were for each tournament (which Andy always was and Stan sporadically was for a few years).
Lol. A reason. The term was created by the media. The media create all kind of **** in order to hype certain players or to have good headlines. Murray is more consistent in reaching semis/finals or winning masters but against the big three he is in no way better than Stan, most likely even worse. Both of them are equal in slams, so yes the other poster is obviously right, they are way closer than Murray is to the big three.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Let's compare like 1% of Wawrinka matches to 10% of Murray matches

That is absolutely how it works.
He sort of has a point tho. Player A is more consistently great but not elite. Player B isn't consistently great but is occasionally elite. Both win 3 slams, just for different reasons.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
He sort of has a point tho. Player A is more consistently great but not elite. Player B isn't consistently great but is occasionally elite. Both win 3 slams, just for different reasons.
Implying peak Murray isn't elite.

That is just selection bias.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Lol. A reason. The term was created by the media. The media create all kind of **** in order to hype certain players or to have good headlines. Murray is more consistent in reaching semis/finals or winning masters but against the big three he is in no way better than Stan, most likely even worse. Both of them are equal in slams, so yes the other poster is obviously right, they are way closer than Murray is to the big three.
Term was created when Andy and Stan both had 0 slams. And Novak had one at most. It was never about slam count.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
the big 4 was the big 3 with a revolving door of andy and stan..delpo would have been there too if he had better health
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Stan demonstrating again that there was never a Big 4. It was either a Big 3 or a Big 5. When Stanimal is in form, he is no worse than Murray.
We can easily take that view when just considering the Slams but not the tour in general. Stan has done zilch on the tour outside of the Slams and hasn't even been ranked above #3 unlike the others you refer to.

Stan is a Slaminal in every sense of the word and is unique in that respect (I can't think of another multiple Slam champion who has so few achievements otherwise).
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Exactly. Everyone thought after Nadal’s 5.5 hour Verdasco semi at AO 2009 that Fed would wipe the floor with him in the final. Now Stan Isn’t Rafa, but the match will be a lot closer than many are assuming. I think Stan even has a shot of beating Roger.
Clay is the only surface where Stan has scored wins off Fed so he’s definitely got a shot at winning next round. Didn’t he beat Fed at RG a few years ago as well?
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Er...when exactly did Andy and Stan share this revolving door?
If anything, most of the slots were a revolving door. We never had all 5 healthy and playing well at the same time. I don't think we've even had 4 in at least 5 years now.
 
Top