The important Wawrinka has had on the way things currently stand; damage he has done to Djokovic

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#57
Stan does have a winning record vs Murray overall on clay (tied at the French though) and at the U.S Open. Clay isnt really surprising to anyone of course, but the U.S Open is surprising to me since a)Murray career wise is significantly better on all faster surfaces, b) even moreso 2 of their 3 matches there were before Wawrinka was even any semblance of a top player. Remember those first 2 matches occured in 2008 (won by Murray) and 2010 (won by Wawrinka). Even the 2013 U.S open quarterfinal match was before Wawrinka had ever won a slam, before his first slam semi I believe, since that occured at this very U.S Open. I dont believe they ever played at the Australian Open which is Stan's 2nd best slam, maybe they had a meeting many years ago I dont know about.
Stan is 4-1 vs Andy on clay, 3-2 vs Andy at the US Open. No, they have never met at the Australian Open, the only Slam they didn't meet.

Murray can hold his own for sure, even beating prime Wawrinka on clay is evidence of that, but it seems Wawrinka is definitely a tough opponent for him. Their head to head is almost a tie, something like 11-9 or 11-10 isnt it? I guess that shouldnt be surprising when both are 3 slam winners, but somehow it feels like it is; maybe because of how useless Wawrinka is against Fedal, and how extremely lopsided his overall losing record is vs Djokovic despite the slam success. And that is counting all the matches for many years when Wawrinka was a journeyman regular top 20 type player, which probably takes up about half those matches, and he still managed to make it a very close head to head.
11-8 to Murray. Stan has been one of Andy's tougher opponents.

So breaking down the Big 4 members I would say Wawrinka is just a simple asswipe for Fedal, with even grandpa Fed barely breaking a sweat to beat him off of clay and slow high bouncing hard court, a legit threat to Djokovic, and an even bigger threat/quite competive nice rivalry for Murray. In addition to Federer being a horrible technical match up for Stan (and the much better player), Stan seems completely spooked and timid when they play ever since I first saw them play one another in 2008, probably the dual Swiss and being in Federer's shadow at home thing. By contrast Del Potro is a tougher opponent for Fedal than he is for either Djokovic or Murray, especialy Djokovic who is his nightmare, especialy in a best of 5.
Agree with this. Ironically, Wawrinka beat Federer to win his only Masters title at 2014 Monte Carlo (Federer's last final there) a few months after beating Nadal for his first Slam. Coupled with the 2 Slams he took off Djokovic, it's safe to say that, after Murray, he is the player who has been the biggest thorn in the side of the Big 3 in recent years despite his overall lopsided deficit in matches against them. All 4 of his big titles were won at the expense of one or other of the Big 3.
 
#58
I had never thought of this until someone else indirectly referenced it in another thread but it is amazing to realize without Wawrinka Djokovic would currently be at 18 slams, while Federer and Nadal still being at 20 and 17. Djokovic would already be ahead of Nadal, and be virtually guaranteed to breeze pass Federer, rather than just maybe having a chance to pass/catch him in slams as currently is. It is amazing to realize what a huge difference a relative non entity and one of the weakest 3+ slam winners ever like Wawrinka has made to how things stand, and to Djokovic's current situation. Djokovic must really hate Stan. :-D
Well they've played doubles together numerous times in recent years and always seem to be on friendly terms whenever I see them on the practice courts so I doubt very much this is the case.
 
#60
One interesting rivalry of Wawrinka's is his rivalry with Berdych. Up until 2013 it was 5-5. After that point Wawrinka won 7 in a row and it is now 12-5. So basically they were equals, atleast in head to head terms, until Stanimal began and then Berdych was whitewashed from there, only occasionaly getting a set.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#61
One interesting rivalry of Wawrinka's is his rivalry with Berdych. Up until 2013 it was 5-5. After that point Wawrinka won 7 in a row and it is now 12-5. So basically they were equals, atleast in head to head terms, until Stanimal began and then Berdych was whitewashed from there, only occasionaly getting a set.
A top player dominating Berdych. As expected as the sky being blue.
 
#63
A top player dominating Berdych. As expected as the sky being blue.
Haha of course, which just shows prior to 2013ish Wawrinka himself was not a top player, even less of one than Berdych in fact despite splitting their head to head matches. Winning every single match vs Berdych and almost never losing a set is his christening as a top player. Berdych is like the generic measuring stick, the forever solid steady eddie second tier guy, once Berdych is your total beetch and you are slapping him around regularly you are now a real top player.

Almost like how on a smaller scale Cilic was now a real top player when he began destroying Berdych in slam matches like Wimbledon and the U.S Open in 2014. Top players dominate Berdych, so that is the first thing you are now a top player.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#65
Haha of course, which just shows prior to 2013ish Wawrinka himself was not a top player, even less of one than Berdych in fact despite splitting their head to head matches. Winning every single match vs Berdych and almost never losing a set is his christening as a top player. Berdych is like the generic measuring stick, the forever solid steady eddie second tier guy, once Berdych is your total beetch and you are slapping him around regularly you are now a real top player.

Almost like how on a smaller scale Cilic was now a real top player when he began destroying Berdych in slam matches like Wimbledon and the U.S Open in 2014. Top players dominate Berdych, so that is the first thing you are now a top player.
That's actually...incredibly accurate. :-D
 
#66
O
It's a mystery how Djokovic managed to lose to this dude but USO 16 Djoko was not in form at all and was struggling physically. He got walkovers to the finals so that loss was hardly a missed opportunity. FO 15 though was a shocking loss and unexpected.
I totally agree!
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#67
Didn't he beat them in RG15 QF and AO14 F?



Before Wawrinka's peak, he wasn't so good against Djokovic either. And Nadal and Federer didn't play much against Wawrinka after RG15.
Fed is 3-1 in slams against Stan since 2014, while Novak is 1-3.

That one win being against an old Fed in BO5 on clay.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#69
I believe that is possible. Still not sure that would have happened, but it is the only 1 of those 3 slams I see any chance Djokovic losing in without Wawrinka. I dont see any possible scenario he loses at Australian 2014 or French 2015 when all the others who might have beaten him he already won against or already fell in the draw to players that werent Wawrinka.

I dont have an easy time envisioning him losing to non peak Del Potro or Nishikori in a slam final, but he was pretty vurnerable and ripe for the picking at the point of the 2016 U.S Open too.
Djokovic is not losing to Nishikori, I can tell you that much ;)
 
#70
Djokovic is not losing to Nishikori, I can tell you that much ;)
I strongly feel that way too, but then again 2014 U.S Open happened. The more time that goes on though, and the more matches Nishikori and Djokovic play, the more that result feels like one of the gigantic flukes of tennis though (not to take anything away from Kei's huge win that day).
 

vex

Hall of Fame
#71
Wawrinka is simply a bad match-up for Novak, that's the only explanation, because he is inferior in every sense of the word to Djokovic.
Djokovic prefers not to leave his comfort zone of playing relatively balanced offense/defense, safe tennis. He plays super aggressive against Rafa and thats about it. Stan (when he's peaking) has the offense to wreck Djoker's "safe mode" and Djoker has been too stubborn to treat Stan matches like Rafa matches. Check out that 2015 RG final. INSANELY frustrating how Djoker keeps playing safe, relatively passive tennis while Stan just plays ball to the wall.
 
#72
So...

Fedr is a Weak Era champ beating the likes of young Djokr, young MuryGOAT, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Safin, etc.

old-Fedr lost 2 slam matches, but zero slam finals to Wawrinka/MuryGOAT.

peak-Djokr lost 5 slam matches, but 4 slam finals to Wawrinka/MuryGOAT.

So Fedr is Weak Era champ while Djokr is Weaker Era champ, no?
:p

*Oldmanfan runs away*

(p.s. or maybe Fedr simply makes them look weak? ;) )
 
#76
I strongly feel that way too, but then again 2014 U.S Open happened. The more time that goes on though, and the more matches Nishikori and Djokovic play, the more that result feels like one of the gigantic flukes of tennis though (not to take anything away from Kei's huge win that day).
Have you gone back and looked at that match since? It was a fluke.

Novak was awful that day (by his standards). It wasn't a redlining Kei that slayed the beast. Novak beat himself with very uncharacteristic errors at awful times. For the only time ever, Kei's reliable ground game was the perfect counter to the erratic Djokovic.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#77
I'd love to believe Roger actually could have won that AO...but I know it's not true. Andy didn't take anything away by beating him in the semis.
You may be right but we can't know for sure. Roger was playing very well at that time (had just come off one of his best seasons) and Novak was not in full beast mode at that time either.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#78
So...

Fedr is a Weak Era champ beating the likes of young Djokr, young MuryGOAT, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Safin, etc.

old-Fedr lost 2 slam matches, but zero slam finals to Wawrinka/MuryGOAT.

peak-Djokr lost 5 slam matches, but 4 slam finals to Wawrinka/MuryGOAT.

So Fedr is Weak Era champ while Djokr is Weaker Era champ, no?
:p

*Oldmanfan runs away*

(p.s. or maybe Fedr simply makes them look weak? ;) )
Djokovic deals with Murray better than Federer: 25-11 to 14-11.

Federer deals with Wawrinka better than Djokovic: 21-3 to 19-5.
 
#80
I had never thought of this until someone else indirectly referenced it in another thread but it is amazing to realize without Wawrinka Djokovic would currently be at 18 slams, while Federer and Nadal still being at 20 and 17. Djokovic would already be ahead of Nadal, and be virtually guaranteed to breeze pass Federer, rather than just maybe having a chance to pass/catch him in slams as currently is. It is amazing to realize what a huge difference a relative non entity and one of the weakest 3+ slam winners ever like Wawrinka has made to how things stand, and to Djokovic's current situation. Djokovic must really hate Stan. :-D
It is not thay easy actually. Yes, Djokovic has his 3 Slam losses against Wawrinka, but Wawrinka being absent doesn’t guarantee him those 3 titles. Maybe Australian Open 2014 would be safe, but French Open 2015 and US Open 2016 not so.

The winner of RG 2015 could very well have been Federer who also suffered a defeat by Stan there and maybe would have been able to beat a nervous Djokovic in the final. That would have even increased the gap. And in US Open finals Djokovic was always beatable against other opponents as well (especially when he wasn’t in the best shape which was clearly the case in 2016).

Also, as @NoleFam already said, even if Djokovic has his 3 titles, nobody knows what follows, when he has his motivational hole then etc.
 
#82
Stan is blessed with two GREAT wings, he can hit winners from both sides from anywhere on the court. Djokovic 2014-2016 relied on consistency, that was his major weapon, the "Ultron Lock Down Mode", but when Stanimal showed up, consistency was not enough to win. It's fair to say Stan was the aggressor in those matches; it was on his racquet, mostly. But Djokovic knew defense wouldn't suffice.

I'm a little tired of reading about Wawrinka's backhand like he is a one trick pony. He hit three times more forehand winners in their RG final, for instance (36/12). And he served like a beast. Novak has had trouble with Stan's first serve, which is very versatile, and absolutely underrated. If Stan serves 65%+ 1st serves, he is a threat to anyone on any surface. Like Federer and Murray, he is very vulnerable when the 1st serve fails to deliver.
 
Last edited:
#87
Djokovic likes Stan. They are friends.
I don't like Stanislas, everything that I know about him makes me feel he is inesecure a $$hole.
Oh and one more thing - he once beat injured Novak in final UO, one time exhausted Novak at RG, and once healthy Novak at AO.
So please... Don't hail the guy more than he deserves.
 
#88
This is only true if you are just saying everything would remain the same and there would be no ripple effect if you changed something in the past. There is always going to be a ripple effect though. If Djokovic didn't lose RG 2015 he probably wouldn't have won 4 Slams in a row so he wouldn't be at 18 anyway. It was the disappointment from that loss that led him on a tear in the 1st place. Djokovic is so head strong that if he wants to achieve something he will give it everything he has and a couple of losses probably won't deter him much as long as he's healthy.
Exactly had Djokovic won RG 15 maybe he wouldn't have won Wimbledon a few weeks later
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#91
Rafa had beaten him 15 times all in straight sets before the final.
And the Fed fans think Rafa wasn’t injured hahahaha. That Stan was playing that great lol he didn’t

His behaviour during that final too was discusting. He is an attention seeker.
Check out his social media. He might have a world record in smileys. Even using crying smileys for his one injury. He made a lot of fuss about that. While others have dealed w many more and worse injuries than him.
Djokovic had 14 straight victories over Stan before AO 2014.
 
#94
Djokovic likes Stan. They are friends.
I don't like Stanislas, everything that I know about him makes me feel he is inesecure a $$hole.
Oh and one more thing - he once beat injured Novak in final UO, one time exhausted Novak at RG, and once healthy Novak at AO.
So please... Don't hail the guy more than he deserves.
But how closely Stan played him at AO 13, as well as the 5 setters at the USO that year and Australia 2015 lend credence to the idea that those 3 wins weren't flukes. Even when Novak's better, Stan still causes him way more trouble than most at the slams.
 
#95
If Wawrinka hits beast-mode (which he does very rarely), he can beat anyone. He did win critical matches against Federer (FO 2015 QF) and Nadal (AO 2014 Final) and the 3 main matches against Djokovic. I think Djokovic regrets (maybe slightly) being too passive in FO 15 and AO 14 matches.
 
#96
It is not thay easy actually. Yes, Djokovic has his 3 Slam losses against Wawrinka, but Wawrinka being absent doesn’t guarantee him those 3 titles. Maybe Australian Open 2014 would be safe, but French Open 2015 and US Open 2016 not so.

The winner of RG 2015 could very well have been Federer who also suffered a defeat by Stan there and maybe would have been able to beat a nervous Djokovic in the final. That would have even increased the gap. And in US Open finals Djokovic was always beatable against other opponents as well (especially when he wasn’t in the best shape which was clearly the case in 2016).

Also, as @NoleFam already said, even if Djokovic has his 3 titles, nobody knows what follows, when he has his motivational hole then etc.
I see your points minus RG 2015. Federer's days of winning RG were long gone by that point. Djokovic wasnt exactly bad in the final, the odds of Federer beating him in a hypothetical final would probably be like 5%, he couldnt even do it or get to a 5th set at Wimbledon or the U.S Open that year so imagine doing it at by far his worst slam at this stage of his career; and his odds of even being in the final without Wawrinka are also probably quite low looking at his RG results from 2013-2015. I also saw the Wawrinka-Fed quarter and while Fed was flat out overpowered that day he was also pretty mediocre in his own level, and definitely signicantly worse than even a slightly passive Djokovic in the final.
 
#97
But how closely Stan played him at AO 13, as well as the 5 setters at the USO that year and Australia 2015 lend credence to the idea that those 3 wins weren't flukes. Even when Novak's better, Stan still causes him way more trouble than most at the slams.
2 times they played at AO when Novak was healthy, they've split wins.
RBA, Kyrgios, Nishikori, Khachanov, Chung, Anderson, Simon, Querrey, Belucci.... how many players have beaten Novak or caused him troubles ?
 
#98
The thing that annoys me about Wawrinka is why he doesnt deliver that kind of consistent effort on the regular tour. Surely if he is capable of taking Djokovic to 5 sets or beating him everytime they played in a slam from 2013 to 2017, he is capable of atleast giving him tough matches in best of 3s or in Masters, even the WTF, but most of the time he just cruises to a super easy loss, barely getting games.

Maybe at his age he feels that is the best way to conserve energy.
 
#99
2 times they played at AO when Novak was healthy, they've split wins.
RBA, Kyrgios, Nishikori, Khachanov, Chung, Anderson, Simon, Querrey, Belucci.... how many players have beaten Novak or caused him troubles ?
You mention health and then have the audacity to bring up the Kyrgios, Khachanov and Chung loses?

And what AO was Novak not healthy for? 13? 15?
 
it is amazing to realize without Wawrinka Djokovic would currently be at 18 slams.
You can play the "what if?" game with considerable more gravitas if you restrict the parameters to ATG's:

Without Nadal, Fed would be at 27 slams
Without Djokovic, Fed would be at 24 slams
Without Nadal, Djoker would be at 20 slams
Without Djokovic, Nadal would be at 23 slams

etc etc. etc. etc...
 
Last edited:
Top