Wawrinka's All-Time Ranking?

Wawrinka in Open Era Rank?

  • Top 15

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Top 20

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Top 30

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Outside Top 30

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14
  • This poll will close: .

BGod

Hall of Fame
#1
You know, let's go beyond "just" his 3 Slam titles and final (where he was clearly injured with the knee against Nadal).

Of his 5 semifinal exits, he went the distance in 3 of them and 4 sets in 1. These losses were against Novak, Federer and one against Murray.
Of his 6 quarterfinal exits, he went the distance in 3 of them, lost in straights to Federer on grass and Nadal on clay and another 4 setter loss to Federer.

Then you have his epic 4th Round loss 10-12 to Djokovic in Australia. The guy is severely awesome. The more I consider these losses individually, the more I like him above guys like Courier, Kuerten and even Vilas. I just see Wawrinka as way more of a fighter than those guys. And with Vilas, beyond the paper AOs he won a USO on clay, common.

Top 20.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#2
Wawrinka isn't even above Hewitt, let alone Courier or Kuerten.

Joke worthy thread, but then again you are the dude the idolizes freaking Rafter of all people.
 

BGod

Hall of Fame
#5
Wawrinka isn't even above Hewitt, let alone Courier or Kuerten.

Joke worthy thread, but then again you are the dude the idolizes freaking Rafter of all people.
1. How is Wawrinka not equal or above Hewitt exactly? A basic breakdown sees:

4 Finals Each, Wawrinka 3>2, beat Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt beat Nalbandian and old Sampras.
Total Semifinals, Wawrinka 9>8, lost 3 in 5 sets while Hewitt lost his in split between straight and 4 sets.

The WTF record is terribly misleading as Hewitt beat Ferrero and Grosjean for his 1st and then Ferrero in 5 the following year. Yes he beat Fed in 3 (Bo3) sets in 02 but that wasn't Slam Fed yet. Wawrinka meanwhile lost 3 semifinals to Fed twice and Novak the other. He held 4 match points against Fed the one.

Then of course we all know Hewitt's competition in 01-02. Yes he got GOAT in his prime but we know how much he put up a fight there don't we. Wawrinka took on the best with stride.

As for Kuerten, Courier, well Kuerten only made it past the quarters in his 3 Slam victories, all at the French so for versatility along Wawrinka is above him while Courier had a 4 years window before his forehand tactic was figured out. In that time his losses were quite one-sided except for his Bruegera loss, kind of the Wimbledon final against Sampras and certainly his 95 AO chokejob against Sampras. Not impressive by any stretch.

2. Rafter is one of 3 men with the USO Triple Crown and 4 time Slam Finalist in 4 seasons.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#7
Slam wins over top-4:

Wawrinka

no.1 Djokovic
no.1 Djokovic
no.1 Nadal
no.1 Murray
no.2 Federer
no.2 Djokovic
no.3 Murray
no.4 Murray

Hewitt

no.2 Roddick
Overall titles: 30.
World Tour Finals: 2.
World Number 1: 80 weeks.

Hewitt leads Wawrinka in every stat besides majors.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#8
1. How is Wawrinka not equal or above Hewitt exactly? A basic breakdown sees:

4 Finals Each, Wawrinka 3>2, beat Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt beat Nalbandian and old Sampras.
Total Semifinals, Wawrinka 9>8, lost 3 in 5 sets while Hewitt lost his in split between straight and 4 sets.
Funny how you don't mention Nadal or Djokovic weren't playing their best or were out of sorts... But you do for Lleyton. Almost dying of laughter right now with how biased you're being.

By the way, Wawrinka won his majors in what you'd also call a weak period.

The WTF record is terribly misleading as Hewitt beat Ferrero and Grosjean for his 1st and then Ferrero in 5 the following year. Yes he beat Fed in 3 (Bo3) sets in 02 but that wasn't Slam Fed yet. Wawrinka meanwhile lost 3 semifinals to Fed twice and Novak the other. He held 4 match points against Fed the one.

Then of course we all know Hewitt's competition in 01-02. Yes he got GOAT in his prime but we know how much he put up a fight there don't we. Wawrinka took on the best with stride.

As for Kuerten, Courier, well Kuerten only made it past the quarters in his 3 Slam victories, all at the French so for versatility along Wawrinka is above him while Courier had a 4 years window before his forehand tactic was figured out. In that time his losses were quite one-sided except for his Bruegera loss, kind of the Wimbledon final against Sampras and certainly his 95 AO chokejob against Sampras. Not impressive by any stretch.

2. Rafter is one of 3 men with the USO Triple Crown and 4 time Slam Finalist in 4 seasons.[/QUOTE]
Excuses re: WTF. Hewitt beat your boy Rafter, Agassi, everyone he had to in order to win in 01. Then he did the job again in 02 by taking out Federer who was playing good tennis and a peaking Ferrero.

We all know the competition of 1997-1999, yet you still hold Rafter in such a high regard. Lleyton dealt with harsher competition than he EVER did.

And we all know the pitiful competition of 2014 to today, yet you're still giving freaking Wawrinka leverage. I honestly think Hewitt/Roddick would win 3 majors today.

Let's not forget how hard Hewitt has pushed Djokovic as an old man (2012 AO, 2012 Olympics, etc) and the fact he's beaten Federer just before retirement.

How's he going to fare worse against old man Fed? Seeing as you put "old man Sampras" (he was 31, Djokovic's age today) and Federer was NEARLY AS OLD AS AGASSI during his last career run.

Rafter is a mug. End of.
 
Last edited:

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#9
"We all know how well he did don't we?".

Well clearly you don't.


Inches away from taking Fed to a fifth set in 2005. Reckon Rafter would've done any better? He had to have an injured limping Sampras in his half to win a second slam.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#15
Stan is def above Hewitt for AO 2013/14 performances alone lol. KRISPY ball striking.
Disagree. He never made it to No. 1, won the WTF or accumulated as many titles.

Let's not forget Hewitt went undefeated against Sampras from 2000 onwards. And Sampras was still top 3 at the time.
 
#17
Hewitt has only old sampras who can be beaten by passing shots. Wawrinka get bullied by big 3 and all their slams are more than Sampras. I think Wawrinka will routine Hewitt quite easily who is a pusher. At that time Wawrinka would have get to number 1 and won WTF.
 
#19
Aside from the Big4, Wawrinka is the only player who won more than 1 slam in the last 17 years. And he won 3, not just 2.
 
Last edited:

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
Hewitt has only old sampras who can be beaten by passing shots. Wawrinka get bullied by big 3 and all their slams are more than Sampras. I think Wawrinka will routine Hewitt quite easily who is a pusher. At that time Wawrinka would have get to number 1 and won WTF.
Lol?

Lleyton started to beat up on Sampras when he was 28. Unless you consider 28 old in any regard I'd hold my tongue if I were you.

Wawrinka has a losing H2H against Hewitt too by the way IIRC and lost to him in 2013 of all years (on grass but still, losing to washed up Lleyton anywhere shows he wouldn't have "beaten him quite easily").

Hewitt wasn't a pusher either lmfao.

I take it you're someone else who hasn't even watched peak Hewitt.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#21
Yep, Wawrinka would've made it to No. 1 with his 3,300-3,500 points for sure. :-D:laughing:

Let's forget the fact Hewitt had over 5,000 (which is nearly 10,000 in today's standings).

Hewitt gets the same treatment Murray does when he's compared to Wawrinka. Wawrinka's mythical peak is more overrated than Safin's, and even still Hewitt and Safin have an even H2H.

And I consider Safin better than Wawrinka in terms of peak level.
 
#22
Lol?

Lleyton started to beat up on Sampras when he was 28. Unless you consider 28 old in any regard I'd hold my tongue if I were you.
Sampras had a 69.3% winning percentage in 2000-02. Five wins over him at the time were not that great.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
#23
Sad times, Hewitt criminally underrated as usual.

The gap in competition and great wins is too big IMO.
Hewitt has 33 wins over top 5 players, Wawrinka has 19...despite Hewitt becoming chronically injured at 25 lol. If Hewitt had been as healthy as Wawrinka generally has there would be no doubt at all.

As I know you like stats...

From 2000-2005 Hewitt was 46-29 (61%) against the top 10 (he was 36-23(61%) from 2001-2005), from 2013-mid 2017 Wawrinka was 32-31 against the top 10. Hewitt has a much better score against the top 5 as well.

Wawrinka beat better ranked opponents in slams but a few ranking places are arbitary IMO - granted Wawrinka's AO and FO win were very impressive.
 
#24
Sad times, Hewitt criminally underrated as usual.



Hewitt has 33 wins over top 5 players, Wawrinka has 19...despite Hewitt becoming chronically injured at 25 lol. If Hewitt had been as healthy as Wawrinka generally has there would be no doubt at all.

As I know you like stats...

From 2000-2005 Hewitt was 46-29 (61%) against the top 10 (he was 36-23(61%) from 2001-2005), from 2013-mid 2017 Wawrinka was 32-31 against the top 10. Hewitt has a much better score against the top 5 as well.

Wawrinka beat better ranked opponents in slams but a few ranking places are arbitary IMO - granted Wawrinka's AO and FO win were very impressive.
Yeah I know Hewitt is more consistent, but Wawrinka has much higher highs. I would take Wawrinka's 10 best tournaments over Hewitt's 10 best tournaments every day.

Hewitt underrated? IMO he is overrated as hell, for his 2 slams and 80 weeks as no.1 in the worst years ever.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#25
Yeah I know Hewitt is more consistent, but Wawrinka had much higher highs. I would take Wawrinka's 10 best tournaments over Hewitt's 10 best tournaments every day.

Hewitt underrated? IMO he is overrated as hell for his 2 slams and 80 weeks as no.1 in the worst years ever.
Hewitt was 20-21 when was number one. Hugely impressive no matter the competition which was still open (as it had been for decades) and included the likes of Agassi etc...

I would take Hewitt on grass, faster HC's and indoors any day...funny how now higher highs matter more than consistency.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
#26
To me, peak Wawa is def in the same exclusive category as ultron and peak nadal and fed. Can't think of anyone else in that elite group, though.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#27
Sampras had a 69.3% winning percentage in 2000-02. Five wins over him at the time were not that great.
Ended 2000 at No. 3 with Wimbledon under his belt, SF at the AO, and a final at the US Open. How is beating him twice that year (including a bagel set) not impressive?

By the way, you are purposely grouping those years to bring down Sampras' win percentage. Nobody is talking about 2001-2002 Sampras here, he was ranked outside the top 10 and at times the top 15. It was obvious he was declining. But he was not declining in 2000.
 
#30
Ended 2000 at No. 3 with Wimbledon under his belt, SF at the AO, and a final at the US Open. How is beating him twice that year (including a bagel set) not impressive?

By the way, you are purposely grouping those years to bring down Sampras' win percentage. Nobody is talking about 2001-2002 Sampras here, he was ranked outside the top 10 and at times the top 15. It was obvious he was declining. But he was not declining in 2000.
Come on, Hewitt had 5 wins over a mediocre version of Sampras. Nothing impressive except the UO 01 final, I would say.
 
#31
Hewitt is ATP's Hingis. Perfecg timing to enter the top tier. Beat old top players, lost to younger ones. High performing pusher.

Wawrinka nuked a prime Djokovic off the court twice in major finals. Superb attack player.
 
#32
To me, peak Wawa is def in the same exclusive category as ultron and peak nadal and fed. Can't think of anyone else in that elite group, though.
Sorry but this is crap. This myths of the legendary peak stanimal have the sole origin as he happens to be a somehow difficult match up for Djokovic, albeit only in slams as it seems. Against Nadal and Federer he was/is completely useless with H2H of 3-17 and 3-21 respectively. His only slam win against Nadal was when Rafa was clearly injured even though his haters are denying this which further contributed to the Stanimal cult. His only slam win against Fed was when Roger was 34 and at the French in top of that.
All in all this prime wawrinka hype is blown way out of proportion.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#36
Wawrinka isn't even above Hewitt, let alone Courier or Kuerten.

Joke worthy thread, but then again you are the dude the idolizes freaking Rafter of all people.
One does not have to be an ATG to be an outstanding great and entertaining player as Rafter was. The same is true with Stan, at his best. Rafter was probably one of the ATG volleyers, which is unusual in today's game. Perhaps I appreciated his game more because it was so different than my "pusher" game style.
 
#37
Sorry but this is crap. This myths of the legendary peak stanimal have the sole origin as he happens to be a somehow difficult match up for Djokovic, albeit only in slams as it seems. Against Nadal and Federer he was/is completely useless with H2H of 3-17 and 3-21 respectively. His only slam win against Nadal was when Rafa was clearly injured even though his haters are denying this which further contributed to the Stanimal cult. His only slam win against Fed was when Roger was 34 and at the French in top of that.
All in all this prime wawrinka hype is blown way out of proportion.
I disagree about his peak being as high as the Big3's, but let's not act like he was just a bad matchup for Djokovic.

Wawrinka in 2013-17 slams beat Federer, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga, Tsonga, Berdych, Berdych, Nishikori, Nishikori, Anderson, Monfils, Gasquet, Goffin, Simon. Plus he pushed to the 5th set Federer, Nishikori, Raonic and Gasquet.
 
Last edited:
#38
No, Hewitt was not a better player. He was just more consistent outside slams.
Winning % pretty much says it all.

Wawrinka 63.3%
Hewitt 70.2%

Not even close. Twice as many titles to boot. Wawrinka just had a way of finding an unreal level at the right times. Hewitt straight setted Wawrinka in 2013 at Wimbledon in their last meeting.
 
#46
Let's say Ferrer is above him too then. No.27.
Ferrer more consistent without a doubt. Ferrer would never beat a high caliber player at the business end of a slam. Hewitt did. I know that's the comparison you're trying to make. Hewitt was able to consistently beat two tier 1 ATG in Sampras and Federer before Federer turned it around. Something Wawrinka and Ferrer have never been able to do outside of Wawrinka having Djokovic's number in slam finals. Like I've said before, Djokovic made Wawrinka. Wawrinka is my fav player of the three, so no bias here.
 
#47
Sampras 6th and Borg 8th greatest players of the Open Era. Do you agree?
I'm just showing that elo and a lot of other stats about 2015(or anything else propping Djokovic) don't mean anything except for being raw data. You choose to overlook the story of how and why everything happens in tennis.
 
#49
Ferrer more consistent without a doubt. Ferrer would never beat a high caliber player at the business end of a slam. Hewitt did. I know that's the comparison you're trying to make. Hewitt was able to consistently beat two tier 1 ATG in Sampras and Federer before Federer turned it around. Something Wawrinka and Ferrer have never been able to do outside of Wawrinka having Djokovic's number in slam finals. Like I've said before, Djokovic made Wawrinka. Wawrinka is my fav player of the three, so no bias here.
Come on, Sampras and Federer in 2001-02 were not great players. It's like praising Kyrgios for beating 2017 Djokovic.
 
Top